Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1908-08-28
BRYAN SPEAKS
ON THE TARIFF.
Questions Protection Benefit
To Wage Garner.
HOW THE SYSTEM Operates

TAX UPON CONSUMPTION BEARS
HEAVIEST ON THE POoR-PROTEC-
TIoN DOES NOT MAKE GOOD WAGES
JUSTICE WHOLE AM OF DEMOCRAT
&c PARTY, ETC, ETC.
Before 5000 people at Des Moines,
Iowa, on Friday, MIR. Bryan opened
the campaign. Beginning his discus
sion of the various issues of the cam
paign, he spoke on the tariff question
in part as follows:
Mr.. Chairman, Ladies and Gentle
men-In my notification speech L stat
ed that as the campaign progressed /
would discuss the question s'Shall the
People Rule?" as it applies to the vari-
Gus issues involved in this campaign.
L begin with the tariff question because
it is the most lasting of our economic
questions and the one upon which the
leading parties have most frequently
opposed each other.
The Republican platform says that
the tariff is intended for the American
manufacturers, farmers and producers
and especially for the wage earners. If
the farmer and the wage Garner are
really the chief beneticiaries of the pro-
tective system, with the Republican
candidate explain why the farmer and
the wage Garner have contributed so
little to the Republican campaign
fund? Is he willing to publish list
of contributors on the 18th day of next
October and allow the relative advan-
tage of protection to the manufacturer,
the farmer and the wage Garner to be
measured by the contributions received
from each class? Why is it that the
manufacturers are expected to furnish
50 large proportion of the money to
run the campaign if, as the Republi-
cans claim, the farmers and the labor
ers enjoy so large proportion in the
benefits of the system? Is it not a
significant fact that the farmers and
wage earners who are always put in
the foreground when the blessings of a
high tariff are being enumerated are in
the background when the collections
are being made? Is it not significant
that the manufacturers, who furnish
the funds, are so little advertised as
beneficiaries Is it not significant also
that the wage earners, instead OF the
manufacturers are always described as
ssthe most direct beneficiaries of the
protective system ?"
| DEMOCRATS TELL HOW TO REDUCE.
The Democratic platform not only
demands reduction of the tariff, but
it plainly outlines the course to be pur-
sued in securing the reduction. 1t be-
gins by proposing that articles which
come into competition with articles
controlled by trust be placed on the
| free list What better place to begin ?
Years ago Mr.. Havemeyer, the head of
| the sugar trust, said that the tariff
was the mother of trusts, and her chill
dren are many. Secretary Taft in his
notification speech says that an exces-
sive tariff serves no useful purpose,
ssbut offers temptation to those who
would monopolize the production and
| the sale of such articles in the country
to profit by the excessive rate
Let me show you how the tariff OPP
crates. | have here statement made
by Mr.. H. E. Miles, chairman of the
tariff committee of the National Asso-
citation of Manufacturers and head Of
the agricultural implement trust. The
statement appears in the American In
dustries of Nov. 10, 1907, a paper which
is now supporting the Republican tick
ct and making special fight against
the labor plank of the Democratic plat
form. Here is what Mr.. Miles says:
81 have made money every year out
of the tariff graft-not much, but sti
little.
/ ssThe tariff barons raised their price
$5O,OOO to me. / made charge against
the jobber of 1000, and | know that
he charged more than 200 for the
$50, 900 be paid me. Before reaching
the consumer the $4,000 charge be-
came about $3.50, 900, to be paid by the
agricultural consumer
DOUBLE PROFIT TO MANUFACTURER.
"The manufacturer who would pros
per must make double profit-one by
the shrewd management of his bust
and another by still shrewder nlanlpula-
ton in Washington.
Il ave have no great difficulty in shop
ping abroad, for we could get as high
prices as at home. We are so held Up,
however, by our supply people that 10
most of us there is very scant profit IN
foreign business.
"When congress gave us Is per cent,
we needing only 20 per cent, they gave
us a congressional permit, if not an in
vitation, to consolidate, form one great
trust and advance our prices % per cent.
. bring the difference between the 20 per
cent needed and the 45 per cent given. !"
How will Mr.. Taft explain to the av-
erage man the benefits of protection?
He can easily convince trust that it
profits by the tariff, but what about
the victim of the trust?
The second step in the reduction of
the tariff is ''material reduction upon
the necessities of life, especially upon
+ goods competing with such American
> manufactures as are sold abroad more
cheaply than at home.n AT present
the articles used by the poor bear a
higher rate ad valorem than the articles
used by the rich. This statement can
be verified by an examination OF any OF
the schedules. A tax upon consump-
ton, even when laid with absolute inn
partiality, bears heavies: upon the poor
because our necessities are much more
uniform than our possessions. People
do not eat in proportion to their in
! come; they do not wear clothing i'll pro-
: portion in their income; they do not
a used taxed goods in proportion to their
income AS all taxes must come out
a of ones income, no matter through
what system levied or collected, they
are, in effect, income taxes, and taxes
on consumption are really graduated
. income taxes, the largest per cent be
q ing collected from those with the small
! est income and the smallest per cent
from those with the largest income /,
is only fair, therefore, that in an at,
tempt to relieve the people from the
iniquities Of high tariff the poor, who
q are overburdened should be given first
: consideration. Then, too, reduction
in the tariff on the necessities of life
: brings a benefit to all the people, while
: reduction in the tax upon luxuries
would benefit but a portion of the peo-
pie.
The third proposition which the pro
+ tectionist must stablish-namely, that
" the tariff asked for is necessary-I still
!, less considered. 1t is true that we pay
= higher wages per day than are paid