The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1909-06-30
SENATOR BAILEY
MAKES CAUSTIC REPLY
Texas Senator Takes Four Hours to
Tell Why He Has Taken Posi-
tion on Tariff Bill That Does
Not Meet with the APP
prOval of the
Senate.

Not Meet with the APP
proval of the
Senate.
WASHINGTON, June 25. - In
long speech in the senate to-day
Senator Bailey of Texas, made reply
to those who have been criticising
him for his position in favor of a
duty on hides, lumber and iron ore
and other articles of raw material in
connection with the pending tariff
bill. His expression on the subject
of hides is fair example of what
he said with reference to the other
articles involved. "If," he said, II
were invested with power to repeal
any duty would not repeal the duty
on hides until l could also repeal the
duty on shoes and leather goods. l
would not repeal either until l could
repeal both, and l would either have
free trade in everything made out
of hides, or else l would lay reve-
nue. tariff on the hides" He could
not, he said, comprehend how a
Democrat could think that he was
relieving the consumer from the eX-
actions and expressions of the manu-
facturers by voting to take the duty
off of what the manufacturers buy
from the people and still leaving a
duty on what the people buy from
the manufacturers. THAT kind of
man." he continued, may be a
free trader, but he is free trader
in spots; and the misery of it all
is that he selects the factories of this
country as the spots where he applies
his free trade doctrine. 1 have
sometimes doubted the sincerity of
the men who denounce the greed of
American manufacturers and then
crafty that greed by exempting the
same manufacturers from the taxes
which everybody else is required to
pay. If they really believe that one
class is robbing all other classes they
ought to punish the robbers and not
the victims"
Mr. Bailey was willing to concede
that the Democrats who advocate
free hides desired as earnestly as he
did to reduce the price of shoes and
of leather goods generally, but not
to concede that they knew as well
rs he did how to accomplish this re-
suit. They seem," he said, ito
think that the proper method is to
first reduce the manufacturers cost
of production and then reduce the
duty on the finished product. That
will undoubtedly reduce the price of
the finished product to the ultimate
consumer, but there is another and
a much juster way to accomplish the
same end" Outlining this plan, he
insisted that the producer of the raw
material and the manufacturer of the
finished product should be compelled
to share in the reduction on behalf
of the whole people.
With reference to lumber Mr..
Bailey contended that the forests
would not be preserved by placing
lumber on the free list, his argument
being that the timber lands of the
United States and of Canada must
supply the demands of both countries
and that therefore it would make no
difference from which country the
timber must be cut He also argued
that the only people who would be
benefited by free lumber from Can
ada would be the lumber buyers
along the Canadian border. and
what right have they?" he asked, Ito
ask us that we give them the ad-
vantage of free trade in this particu-
lar article? Do they not demand
protective tariff upon the meat and
the bread stuffs which they produce?
Do they not vote for these high du-
ties on manufactured articles? #
am actuated by no narrow preju-
dice and my mind is free from every
taint of sectional animosty; but l
shall never consent to give free trade
to people who impose protection on
everybody else. I shall resolutely
stand here and insist that those who
apply protection to others shall not
be suffered to escape it themselves"
In another connection, Mr.. Bailey
declared that he could not answer to
his Judgment and his conscience as
Democrat for voting to put lumber
on the free list, while glass, hard
w
necessary material are subject to a
duty of more than thirty per cent.
Saying that he had been told that
free iron ore would stimulate the in
dependent steel companies, Mr..
Bailey declared that there is only
a semblance of competition between
the steel trust and these so-called in
dependent companies" His infor-
nation was that the price list of the
Independent companies read like
copies of those of the trust, a fact
which he said had led to open
charges that there is an agreement
between them. He himself did not
make, that charge, but merely re-
ferred to it, but he contended that
whether true or not competition
would not be obtained by the remov-
al of the duty on iron ore.
Mr.. Bailey again declared that the
offenses of the trusts could not be
reached through the tariff and by
exemptions from duty of raw ma
- i