The Thibodaux sentinel. (Thibodaux, La.) 1905-1912, 1909-09-25
SENATOR bailey ON TARIFF
Answers Attack of Bryan on
His Tariff Record.
FOLLOWED PLATFORM OF HIS STATE

FOLLOWED PLATFORM OF HIS stat
Denounced Free Raw Material as IT,
democratic. Is Willing That
the Duty Should be
Removed.
Dallas, Tex.Before a large an
enthusiastic audience in the auditc
rum United States Senator j. "
Bailey made his reply to speech dc
81 l1yera5 IN this city on .Democrac
!E: s1s u !. ari 81 s.
Bryan declared for free ra,
material and reduced rates on man
ufactured goods and severely arrang
ed the Texas Democratic platform O
1896 which denounced this doctrine
Senator Bailey contended for loy
revenue duties on both raw materia
and manufactured articles. Through
out Texas the general opinion is tha
this is the beginning of a fight be
] tween Bailey and Bryan for the lead
ership of the Democratic party.
Taking up the four reasons advanc
ed by Mr.. Bryan in favor of free raw
material, Senator Bailey made reply
to each in detail. To the first objec.
t1on of Mr.. Bryan that duty on raw
material would be an embarrassment
to the manufacturer in export trade
Senator Bailey said:
"Of course, duty on the raw ma
terial is an Embarrassment to the
manufacturer, just as any tax is an
embarrassment in the same sense. to
the man who pays it. OF course,
when the manufacturer pays tax on
his raw material, his cost of produc-
tion is increased just that much, but
when the government lays a tax on
the manufacturers products, the cost
| OF living is increased just that much
to all American consumers, and
| would prefer to relieve the 'embar-
rassment' of the American consumer
at home than to relieve the 'embar.
| rassment' of the American manufae-
tuIer abroad. e.,
And my answer to those who de-
mand free raw material in order that
our manufacturers may compete In
the market of the world is that / am
willing to take the tax off the raw
material whenever they are willing
to take the tax off the finished pro-
duct. l believe that American con-
sumers are as much entitled to the
benefit of competition in our markets
as American manufacturers are en-
titled to compete in foreign markets.
# we are to have free trade "a raw
material for the benefit of tbs Amer
ican manufacturers abroad, let us
also have free trade in their finished
products for the benefit of American
consumers at home.
"Mr. Bryan's second argumert
against duty on raw material is that
it is at last duty on the consumer
THIS is strange language to come
from man who has been three times
presidential candidate of the Dem
ocratic party. To contend that a
Democrat must levy q compensatory |
duty is to convict the Democratic.l
party of adopting the worse of pro-
lection devices. When did Mr.. Bryan
learn that Democrat in constructing
. revenue tariff measure is obligated
to give the manufacturer a compen-
satory duty.
A compensatory duty has nj place
in the vocabulary of Democrat who
believes that all taxes should be ley
led for the purpose of raising money
to support the government, because
1t is employed for the purpose of al
lowing the manufacturer to compen-!
safe himself out of the pockets Of the
people for the taxes which he has
paid toward the governments sup
port. The manufacturer as well as
every other man will do that when
ever he can, and often enough with
put a special law enabling him to do
It.
The Democratic party has always
contended that the price of the fin
shed product Is not regarded by the
price Of the raw material or by the
anal cost of production. We have al
ways insisted that the manufacturer
ooks to the immunity from foreign
which the duty on the
inished furnishes him and not to the
:ost of production, when he comes to
X the price Of his commodities.
rave always believed, and / believe
low that the Democratic party has b
,een and Is right In that contention.
believe that the manufacturer will
'xact from the American people the
highest price he can without expos
ng himself to foreign competition
nd do not believe that reducing 1
he cost of protection to the maufac-
urer will reduce the price of the I,
,oods to the consumer,
Mr.. Bryan's third reason for sup {
orting the doctrine of free raw ma {
erials is that the tax is lightest t
1hen imposed upon the products at I
he most advanced stage
He says that each one who han |
les the product exacts a profit, not E
My upon the original price but upon +
be tariff. If this be true, then in t
tead of being an objection to levying I
tax upon the raw material, it be- $
ONES an argument in favor of it be- a
SHOT FROM HORSE.
Columbus, Miss.-The return Of