New-York tribune., 1909-06-27
FRop THE TOP OR THE BOTTOM


It may be Of little practical consequence
whether Senator Bailey is right or wrong in his
contention that, historically considered the
doctrine of free raw materials is not good Dem
ocratic doctrine He says that it was adopteu
for q brief period while Mr. Cleveland ana MS
friends dominated the party but was not ac-
cepted before that time and is not accepted
now. 1t is plain enough that it is not in hlSn
foror TODAY with Democratic Senators and
Representatives Southern Democrats are Keen
10 put tariff taxes on iron ore. hides, lumber
coal and other raw materials produced in the
South They have in fact become more inter
ested in having raw materials taxed than the!
were formerly in reducing what they cohS!ue'ed
excessive protection on manufactured pFoduCIo'
Mr.. Bailey and those who follow him may
saw that they are not violating Democratc ufd-
ditiou in advocating taxes on raw materlaIS-
But the arguments which they make tor Such
taxation certainly conflict with the general tafin
policy of the Democratic party. That party
broadly speaking has stood for the minimizing
of tariff rates. 1t has been. in the main. anti
Drotectionist II has always lowered existing
duties when it revised the tariff laws. Few
Democrats nowadays are willing TO admit
onenlv that they are protectionists. Even when
they vote TO raise the Dingley duty on pine
apples 12S per cent they deny that they are
irving TO protect the domestic pineapple grower
They say that they are applying the protective
theory -prOtectvely. Yet 10 what goal co
their arguments lead? If they insist that raw
materials and raw products of all sorts must be
taxed for revenue purposes they compel the I'M
position of a double duty on the manufactured
nroducts into which such raw materials enter,
for the manufacturer must ask not only direct
protection for himself based on the normal cost
of production but compensatory protection be-
cause Of the added cost of his taxed raw ma
terials.
Instead of aiming at q lower average Of tariff
duties. the Bailey policy aims at hl@her aver
age Instead f simplifying the problem OF re-
duction, assuming that reduction is advisable
the Texas Senator's reasoning complicates and
confuses it IN scaling down the tariff wall he
wants to begin at the bottom instead Of at the
ION. He refuses TO take off the top layer until
the foundation is barred and ready for blasting.
Said Mr. Bailey the other day, discussing the
leather schedule:
If were invested with the power TO repeal
any duty I would not repeal the duty on hldeS
iIutfl could also repeal the duty on shoes and
could repeal both. and l would either have Tree
trade in everything made out Of hides. or /
would lay revenue tariff on hides
The House of Representatives repealed the
duty on hides and lowered the duties on shoes
and other manufactures Of leather. But such a
Mr.. Bailey. who if he cannot get everything
at once wants nothing. Instead Of alloWln" the
Houses partial cut TO stand, he battled valiantY
and successfully for q restoration OF the duty
on hides and necessarily, for the higher duties
on shoes and other leather goods. On lumber
and every other raw material, except Oil, he
took the same position, declining to sanction
any partial reduction and ignoring the self-eyi-
dent fact that reduction must be gradual and
that the best way to begin it is to remove,
whenever practicable those duties on raw ma
teriaIs which necessitate compensatory duties
on finished products. If Mr. Bailey has his
way the top layers in the protection wall viii
be removed last. Such a procedure does not
seem to be in accord with the traditional tariff
theories Of the Democratic party. Neither is
It in accord with scientific methods Of tariff
revision. according TO which the decreases in
protective duties should be gradual, reason
able and not destructive Of any industry really
in need Of protection.