The Washington times., 1909-07-20
TUESDAY EVENING. JULY 20. 1909.
FREE RAW MATERIALS AND
THE CONSUMER.

The consumer doesn't consume raw
materials. He doesn't eat iron ore, nor
wear hides, nor fill his lamp with crude
petroleum. He is the person-or the
myth-in whose interest, primarily, this
revision was undertaken.
How is he going to feel about having
a consumers revision turned into a
manufacturers revision, by giving che
manufacturer all he has been asking.
and doing little or nothing for the
consumers
Senator La Follette's summary of
the Bureau of Statistics statement in
dicated that the Senate bills schedules
actually imposed a larger aggregate
customs taxation than do the Dingley
schedules; very much larger. Now, the
entire amount which would be saved in
customs taxes by adopting the free raw
material program would be an in
significant proportion of the total; so
small as not materially to change this
Bureau of Statistics calculation.
And, for whatever it was worth, it
would not benefit the consumer. 1t
would be for the benefit of the manu-
faeturer, who all along has been the
beneficiary of the tariff.
In the past, as we have said many
times heretofore. the protective tariff
has always been revised by Republi-
cans with the producer first in mind
But this revision was promised as a
consumers revision. It was to be
made with reference especially to the
cost of living. It was expected TO give
the mass of people first thought, and
the producer secondary consideration.
VIII it do that. if the free raw ma
terial program is adopted
Assuredly, it viii not. Let US trace
the history of this bill First, the
pledge of revision downward. Second,
the Payne schedules, against which
everybody protested on the ground that
they didn't keep that pledge. Then the
Senate schedules. which everybody
agreed We're still worse. A long way
from the pledge by this time; the
pledge to do something for the con
sumer.
So it Is proposed to 90 back to the
pledge and do SOMETHING FOR
THE MANUFACTURER.
VIII that undo the wrongs of the
Payne and Aldrich drafts? It Ger
tainly win not. Nothing viii undo
those wrongs except 10 INSIST on
GENERAL REVISION OF THOSE
SCHEDULES WHICH HAVE BEEN
SHOWN To BE NEEDLESSLY HIGH.
in the interest Of the CONSUMER.
Take wooden goods The Finance
Committee defends this schedule by in
sisting that it is the same as in the
Dingley law. But that is no defense.
TO PRESERVE THE DINGLEY
RATES Is NOT REVISION. There
was no schedule in the whole Dinglev
act to which the pledge Of revision
pointed so directly as the wooden
schedule. It ought to be revised down
ward; to leave it unchanged Is worse
than it would be 10 double many other
schedules.
And the cotton duties There has
been a bitter fight against the Senate
changes upward and it Is announced
that the eonferees viii probably return
10 the House rates. But the House
rates were practically the same as the
Dingley rates; and the DINGLEY
RATES WERE TOO HIGH. They
ought to be reduced; not a little but a
good deal.
Take the petty little bit OF graft
which is represented in the rate on
gas mantles. 1t ought to be undoue
And the protection of the Cash
Register Monopoly. Cash registers
ought TO be on the free list.
And the uncomfortable increase in
the duty on lemons. It ought TO be
undOne.
and so on. There are a hundred OF
them that need attention need
10 be taken in hand and revised sharply
downward or to the free list.
Does the free raw material. program
contemplate this? Not so far as any
body knows. 1t simply contemplates
making manufacturers materials
cheaper IN few cases, which means .