Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1909-09-21
BAILEY'S IDEA VERSUS BRYAN'S.

Our sympathies are with Senator
Bailey in his dispute with Bryan as to
the protection of raw supplies. His
position is a far more tenable one
than that of the Nebraskan. The lat
ter declares for free raw material and
for reduced rates on manufactured
goods. Bailey declares for low tariff
on both the raw materials and the
manufactured products. This seems a
far better Democratic principle than
the one espoused by Bryan.
Why should wool be put on the free
list and wooden products given the
benefit of a considerable protection?
Why should hides be put on the free
list and leather products enjoy pro-
lection? Why should cotton be put
on the free list and cotton goods of
every character be protected by sta
tute from foreign competition? Why
should lumber be put on the free list
and the various articles into which it
enters be favored by the governments
levying duty upon their foreign riv-
ais? The farmer who raises the wool,
or the hides, or the cotton, or the
lumberman who turns out the lumber.
is just as much entitled to some de-
gree of protection against the compe-
tition of foreign business rivals as
w a
ais, so called, and changes their form.
The East has in the past few years
been clamorous for free raw materials,
largely because of the fact that the
East is not producing the articles
which it seeks to place upon the free
list. Why should the South and the
West be Disseminated against in fav-
or of the Eastern manufacturers? The
man who invests his money in a cat
tie ranch in Texas, or a cotton plan
tation in Georgia, or a wool farm in
Idaho, or lumber plant in Alabama,
has just as much right to have the
government throw it's protecting arms
about his industry~as the man who
Il. ies :5Uttput and converts it into
some new shape in mill or factory in
one of the Eastern industrial centers.
The man out on the farm or in the
forest has to pay higher prices for
the goods he buys because of this pro-
lection accorded the manufactured
goods of the East. Wouldn't it be rank
favoritism to adopt Bryan's idea, alb
solutely exclude the raw materials
from the benefit of any tariff compell
them to compete with the cotton of
Egypt, the hides of Argentine, the
wool of Australia, the lumber of Can
ada. and force their producers to sell
against the cheapest markets, as it
were, and buy their own necessities at
the advanced prices that the duty en-
tails on manufactured goods.
The tariff has always been more or
less unjust 1t seems to be a most
difficult matter to distribute it's bene-
fits with any approach to justice to all
sections alike. The Democratic party
is supposed to stand for absolute
equality in such matters, for justice to
all interests without regard to section
al lines or character of production.
Bryan certainly does not suggest adj
herence to such policy when he pro-
pose to arbitrarily put raw materials
on the free list Bailey's proposition
is closer approach to Democratic
justice to all interests and all sections.
Wool and hides and cotton and sugar
and lumber, and other raw products of
the South and West, are just as much
entitled to protection as the same ma
terials when they have been rehandled
and converted into some new form of
usefulness, Bryan to the contrary not
withstanding.