The Washington herald., 1909-05-26
As 10 Free Raw Materials.

a Virginia contemporary questions the
recent reference in these columns 10 the
demand for free raw materials as "old
Democratic doctrine" II asks for a cita-
ton from a Democratic platform con
tanning a demand for free raw materials
The facts as to this matter were fairly
given BY Senator Bailey on Monday. and
may be worth a brief summary. Free
raw materials was the basis Of the VII
son bin, and the idea that raw materials
should be untaxed was accepted by the
group Of eminent tariff reformers who
were IN the forefront OF the tariff-reform
movement under the leadership OF Grover
Cleveland In the Democratic platform
Of 1892 the free-raw-materials idea was
specifically indorsed in these words:
We iado-s tie e9O-5s made By the Dement'S
q ths present. COaE7eSs - modify Us most oP-
p-essiss features -eiezTing 70 the tariff IN the d.
recriOl q free raw materials ard cheaper manu-
tactured gods that enter into gneaI cUus1uptio1-
When the Cleveland Democracy lost
control Of the party. in 1856. the doctrine
Of free raw materials was put on the
shelf. Mr.. Bailey says that he drew the
tariff plank Of the 1886 platform with the
distinct purpose OF renunciating the free
raw materials idea But Up TO that time.
8Ir. Bailey admits. the Democratic party
did advocate the doctrine Of free raw ma
terials. though many members Of the
party disliked 1t. 1T was q matter OF
expediency," Mr. Bailey tells Us, with
al Of them In our Southern country
we were told that II we would agree 10
take all the burden or Of the manufac-
turers raw material he would agree to
relieve Us OF some OF the burdens imposed
upon Us when he purchased his finished
product; and to that proposition we
yielded our support. but It never con-
vinced our judgment"
Senator Bailey now declares that no
real Democrat VIII ever again attempt 10
defend free raw materials as a Demo
cratic policy He denounces II as fnde-
fensible because It adds to the special
protective favors granted manufacturers
the added favor OF free trade In their
raw materials There IS some force in
this denunciation, as We saw in the IN
stance OF the sugar trust, which enjoys
a monopoly Of the home market FOR its
finished product the while II imports It's
raw material al less than the nominal
tariff duties. But the trouble with the
argument against free raw materials IS
that It is being used to bolster Up pro-
tective duties under the guiss OF a reve-
nue. tariff. A week or 50 ago eighteen
Democratic Senators voted for a duty on
/ iron ore; On Monday seventeen voted
against free lumber. IN both instances
the duties these Senator's voted 20 sus-
tain are protective duties. and the vote
/ against free raw materials and for an as
sumed revenue duty means simply a vote
to sustain protection.
Notwithstanding the ingenious reason
/ ing OF the Senator from Texas and his
colleagues. We can see the renunciation
I OF the doctrine Of free raw materials in
no other light than as q surrender 10
I protection It IS. In fact. whatever It
may be in theory, an evidence of the
gradual conversion OF the South TO the
/ protective principle. for the raw naterl-
ais the South does not want 10 see on the
free list are productions OF her own soil
and Industry.