The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1909-04-21
HOT SHOT ON Tariff BILL
Representative Aiken Shows Some Inconsistencies
Of the New Tariff Law.

Mr.. Aiken. Mr.. Chairman, we are mere ID
extrs session to revise the tarln scneuuies :
believe that an honest statement OF tae laHt
Is that we are here obedient to the oemana
, OF the people to revise the tarin
It is openly the purpose OF the Dem0ctaI,c
party, reluctantly assented 10 by the hepuo-
leans in campaign promises nns nnder protection
are so9h6ch worse now than In former years,
bnt the abuses, inequalities. and aosarultles
of the protective system nave al ldst nite!su
through the pubic mind; and, thanks 70 Inc
condolences OF our Republican friends OF Inc
Middle Vest, the popular demand lot rslieI
from tariff oppression has at last louna lts
way into. the Repuolicae piatr naitsm hava
consented to commit themselves 10 any re-
vision downward If they had pot isceo tne
doubtful issue of q tpresldential csmpalsn
made doubtful by disafection In their own
ranks on this very Issue. So through!y mao
the Democratic idea OF freedom from the
thraldom of tariff robbery permeatea even
Rrpublican ~strongholds that the dominant
party was left to choose between q platform
declaration favoring revision and deieat AZ
the polls. This promise, though given relnct-
that party's candidate for President to mean
revision downward. And SO, for once. are
Ali committed 10 the good Democratic DOC
trine of1usiice TO all the people.
n seems. however, that Republican plat
form promises are like the smiles OF the sum
mer girl; they are, delusiye TO those VINO
would tske them too seriously. You Sanno,
ITnHL II q u ClCSGAoA ANS
season. But the people are tired OF TINS nirt'
ing. They are beginning to suspect the tIutn,
that in q Republicans dictionary q platform
is DEFINED to be: "A thing 10 get IN on.
How in the face OF campaign promises, the
gentlemen on the other side can bring In a
Dill for this House to consider that In tne az
preeaSe. with minimum rates, is Lob per
cent higher than the rates under the Dfngley
bill, is just a little more than the CONSISTENT
mind can comprehend. This, mind you, Us
unde the minimum rate, most laVoraoly
.l,.toK,arad ubla pnlnr retaliatOry or
countervailipg rates the present Dill Wouio
exceed the Dingiey law, on an average, per.
= haps more than 20 per cent. The chairman OF
the WAYS and Means resents tnis
idea. W lille he admits the fact, he undel-
takes to explain that on the great majority
OF articles the duty has been lowered anu
on certain articles heretofore on The free llsl
1t is proposed by this means TO increase lhe
revenue; the consumer In the end must pay
this Increase, and whether he pays IL on oXa'
lie acid, transferred from the free list TO Inc
dutiable list, at the rate OF cent per ponno
or on sugar, reduced five one-hundreths OF !
cent per pound, is a matter OF supreme lnali
ference 10 him. The question lnat copceibs
the consumer is not the method OF TobDefy
but the fact.
In the tariff hearings before the Ways and
Means Committee, the captains OF INQUIRY
in every conceivable branch. were called il
to say Just how little protection they would
consent to. II seems that in the framing o.
the Dingley bill no secret was made OF Inc
presence OF certain OuLslut dBtuts, "uOsc pun
pose was 10 influence the committee. And
without charging that the committee was un'
duly Influenced, 1t Is a noteworthy fact tba,
the interest represented by one OF these
agents, q manufacture OF wooden tops, re-
ceived q higher rate OF protection than die
the manufacturers of wooden yarns, though
yarn is q further step in. the manufacture
thai tops.
Some one has asked: "If the consumer feels
HIMSELF so much oppressed, why did be mol
appear before the committee and ledge biz
complaints" The consumer. as such, 10 DO,
organized. but the man is not on this floor
who has not heard his complaint privately
Why need he come here? Has he not a right
under normal conditions, 10 expect that be
the very Members who compose that com
mittse and who compose this House? We
are the representatives OF he consumer, q
seems to me that even from the view
point OF the protectionist, something should
be conceded to the millions who do not de-
rive q cent from a protective tariff. 1t Ia free:
ly admitted now that the effect o. thigh tarln
is Ito increase the price 10 the consumer.
Then, has The disin'erested consumer nc
rights?
the population of the United States In 1905
would be something I1ke lS5,OOO,O 600 souls
There were at that time PIG, 262 manufactures
With q caPi ia OF S Sos..rVy ~, or os m3 WeIe a oWns %I bv
single ipdivuals. These manufacturing en-
terprises employed 5.47O,S2l wage-earners, VINO
averaged received about $50 per MONTH, or
something over 81 per day. In this, OF course
Is | included the highest as we'll as the lowest
wages paid. Now. If there is any MN on the
face Of the earth from whom / would not take
a penny either by legislation or otherwise, that
man is q wage.earDer, the operative. The
question Is, Does he get bis share OF the pro-
lection when 1t is considered that he Is q con-
sumner as well as q producer? Who does not
fully 40 Der cent; and who does not know
that the operative barely breaks even on his
wages, when paying trusl-made prices? II
the trust. with all OF its oppressive power, Is
i've tariff, then circnmstantia evidence
counts for nothing. During the first ten
years OF the Dingley law 655 independent cor
eiant trusts. While It is the trust that di
rectly affects prices, 1t is the tariff that direct
ly affects the trust and enables IL to levy ex-
is E'o to Be said Of the other tso,ooo,0OO consumers
who derive not one penny from excessive pre-
lection? Have they no rights In the American
Congress? Are they from their abor to iced,
foster and fatten q few trust-protected barons
under the prete1t OF protecting home Indus
tries?
We may ask very pertinently, what is pro-
tection? 1t is an unreasonable, Indirect Tax,
amounting quite or almost to prohibition OF
the entry OF foreign products, and desig ned In
the Interest OF the manufacturer at home.
without reference 10 the unreasonable exac-
ions from the consumer at home. An ex-
treme example OF protection Is furnished In
the countervailing duty on petroleum. Pc
troleum might be made a good revenue pro-
ducer, II q small tax was put on II, discrimi-
mating in favor ofthe American producer, but
permitting some im%portations from Russia
and other oil-produclng countries. II this
countervailing duty, amounting to some
thing like Is cents per gallon. was removed.
doubtless Russia would remove her export
tax, and the United States Treasury would
get some little toll from the golden stream
that Is annually poured into the Golfers OF the
Standard oil COmDaQy.
There has been but one so-called "Democra-
tic tariff" during the past torty years, and IL
was as Imperfect as a Republican minority
could make It, cooperating with a disgrun.
tied element Of the Democratic party. Yet II
10 not recorded that industry lapguisbed dur
ing the operation OF this tariff.
the last year OF the Wilson-Gornan tariff
81. 100000 more revenue was collected than
during the first year Of the DiDgley bill. That
this is q natural consequence Of low tariff
some OF the rates in the Dingley Act and re-
produced in the Payne bill. We will take,
Tor instance. hannels, worth more than 80
cents and not more than 40 cents per pound
On such 10 levied q duty of q cents per
pound. and In addition a tax ad valorem Of
80 per cent.
tax, amounts to 1857 per cent. Fiannels,
valued at 40 cents and not more than so cents
per pound, are taxed 80 cents per pound; and
in addition. ad valorem tax Of 80 per cent.
This, when figured on the basis of q straight
ad valorem tax, amounts TO l02 &c per cent.
The importation ofthis classSoi gouds in 1901
amounted 10 the Insignificant sum of PSI
pounds. Under q reasonable tariff, 1t NIGH
have run into hundreds of thousands Of
pounds, bringing into the Treasury OF the
United States a commensurate revenue, and
carrying comfort to many a cherries home
of the poor. Flannel is alDiost as necessary
for the health OF the indivual as the bread be
eats. There Is no calculating the ravage
wrought BY pneumonia, consumption, and
kindred diseases, In many cases through