The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-10-05


their sentiments OF not. The Ques-
ton presented is. Is an official
bound by a platform pledge OF is he
free to act as he plcases, regardless
of promises made in the platform?
affirm that an official Is bound by his
platform, but Senator Bailey, If
read his speech Alright. does not eX-
press an opinion on this subject
He attempts to create the impress
sion that the free raw material policy
is intended TO benefit the manufac-
turcr While in his speech he read
the free wool plank of the platform
which | proposed. he proceeded 10
make an argument that ignored vital
part OF the plank We ask not only
for free wool but for two other things:
First. the abolition of compensatory
duties and second. a substantial re
duction In the adj valorem rate. This
would not be favor 10 the manufac
tl,rer for the abolition Of the com
pensatory duties would more than OFF
set the benefit which he would derive
from free raw material. and "a sub
stantial reduction in the ad valorom
rate" would bring a still greater ad
vantage to the consumer Our plan
would give to the Texas consumers
OF wooden goods from five TO ten times
as much In reduced prices as 1t would
give TO the eastern purchasers of
wool in a reduction IN the price of
wool. while his plan compels the Texas
consumer Of woolens to pay the east
ceTn manufacturers many dollars for
every dollar that tariff on wool col
lectS from the eastern manufacture
ers. No one but wool grower Will
accept his argument on this subject
when 1t is uuderstood-and not all of
. them
Means Higher Tax.
The main portion OF Senator
Balley's speech Is devoted to an at
tempt to answer the argument that
duty on raw material is always
transferred TO the consumer He
recognizes that he must overcome
that argument or confess that his
policy would put a higher TAX upon
the consumer than the consumer
would have to pay under our policy
He labors to prove that tax on raw
material would not be transferred un-
der his policy. but he inadvertently
uses one sentence that establishes my
position. He says; If the manufac,
turer transfers the tax on his raw
material to his consumer. then / Will
tell YOU how 10 prevent him from do
Ing so. 1t Is as simple as the alpha
bet. Let us take the tax of the
finished product and then he can not
transfer his tax on his raw material
Yes. that is more than simple. 1t is
absurd His plan Is TO put a tax of
40 per cent on wool for the benefit OF
the sheep owners (that Is the duty to-
day), and. by so doing. increase To
that extent the cost of the manufao.
turers' raw material but II the manu-
faclurer attempts TO add that In
creased cost 10 the price Of the pro-
duct his product Is TO be put on the
free list See how easy 1t is9 That
Is the way-and the only way-to pre-
vent the transfer OF the tax, but, as
that method never has been employed
and never would be employed my
proposition stands. namely. that
tax on raw material Is transferred
10 the finished product and paid by
the consumer The man who favors
tax upon raw material must know
this If he understands the tariff ques-
tion, and he must intend it when he
favors the tax A tax on raw material.
therefore. means the protection OF
few producers Of raw material at the
expense OF a large number of consum-
erS, and, as the tax grows, as pro-
ductions pass through different
hands. a small tax levied on raw ma
terial generaly means heavy tax
on the consumer OF the finished pro-
duct The best way 10 relieve the
consumer is TO remove the tax on
raw material and. at the same time.
make a still greater reduction in the
tax on the manufactured article In
this way YOU Will help the consumer
without helping the manufacturer.
here are many cases in which the
finished product should be put on the
free list, as In the case of leather.
harness, boots and shoes. but II Is
not logical TO say that there must
be no tax upon a finished product
unless there is also a tax upon tho
raw material used in the manufac-
ture Of that product
Senator Bailey's speech proves
what | said in my speech In Dallas,
namely, that taxation of raw mo-
ter.al could not be defended as a ma
tional policy. but must be defended.
If at all, purely as a sectional doc.
triDe. 1t can not be advanced for
the benefit of the whole people, but
must be advanced. If advanced at all.
for the benefit OF few special in
tereSts, and IL must be defended If
defended at all. upon the same ground
that other protective duties are de.
Tended
Protective Argument.
No matter how patriotic the pur.
pose with which the tax on raw ma.
torial is proposed It can not be de-
Tended without resort to arguments
that are employed by the protected
interests. and protective policy can
not be adopted without three results,
which follow as matter OF necessity.
First, the many are taxed for the
benefit OF the few, second. the men
who get the benefit will attempt 10
corrupt politics In order TO retain that
benefit; and, third. the greater num-
Der OF those who believe that they
are benefited by protection. the more
difhcult will we find it to secure tariff
reform, for the protective interests
Will stnnd together, and a few people
We'll ciganized and pecunlarily inter.
eST"d in bad system, are often more
than match for larger number.
uro' eGnized and bearing each one but
small portion OF the burden
Il need not discuss the application
of the principle Of free raw material
TO the questions which wero before
congress, ! can safely leave Sena.
Tor Culberson 10 defend free iron ore
and ] can leave him and nearly all
tho congressman from Texas TO de-
fcnd the uoliCy of free lumber |