Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1910-01-20
ADDRESS TO MISSOURI VOTERS ADOPTED
BY DEMOCRATS AT KANSAS CITY

IuT TEAI u IUE dUUTCSS 10 IHE NUICIS
Of Missouri. adopted by the Committee
on Address at the Democratic convention
follows:
Just reformation of our tariff laws as the
most urgent and the most important eco-
nomlc question to be dealt with in the
immediate future. The Dingley law,
passed in 1897, n which remained in
force until 1909, prescribes the highest
rates of duty OF imports ever imposed
up to thai date by any statute of this
or any other industrial nation.
The tax rates imposed by that law
were so exorbitant as to substantially
exclude the importation of many impor-
tant lines of manufactures, and in all
cases to so burden importations as to
make them difficult and often hazardous.
Taking quick advantage of the favoring
opportunities thus afforded, the great
monopolies were organized in most of
the more important lines of American
manufactures.
The first business Of these monopolies
was to crush competition, or to so ham
per and circumscribe 1t as to make it in
effective; and, this being accomplished,
the mex move, under one excuse or an
other, was gradually to advance the price
OF their commodities to consumers. After
years OF experience under the operations
OF this law, a ~deep-laAd and widespread
conviction was forced on the public judg-
ment-among Republicans as well as
10 VI NAAaA AilI Ia w AAclA OOSOAllS lllC
shelter of monopoly and an instrument
of extortion. As a result of this conyic-
ton, an emphatic, almost ~peremptory,
demand came from every quarter of the
Union for a material reduction in the
rates. 1t was known that the Democrat
tc party, consistently and always opposed
to a high protective tariff, would, If CIV
en- power, make substantial reductions on
all the rates, with a view to reaching a
revenue basis as speedily as possible, and
SO the magnates of special privilege, with
a view to weakening the Democratic po-
sition, induced the Republican bosses to
play a confidence game on the American
voters The Republican party, through
the ~oft-repeated declarations of Judge
Taft, Its presidential candidate, made
during the campaign Of 1908, committed
itself to a solemn promise that if con-
tinued In power that party would thor
oughly revise the tariff with a substan-
tial reduction in the rates. The people
were deceived and the scheme succeeded.
The Republican party did revise the
tariff by the passage of the Payne-Ald-
rich law, but they did not reduce the
rates of duty. On the contrary, on many
articles of prime necessity and in univer-
sal use, the rates were increased and on
many others the high rates of the old
Dipgley law were left undisturbed.
The general average of the rates pre-
Ecribed by the new law is materially
higher than those prescribed by the
sDingley law. In truth, it is manifest,
tIdl lllG lIdiiicIS VI IiS utW law Ildu
in mind almost exclusively the interests
of the great protected producing monop-
olies, with little thought or care for the
great consuming public, whose demands
had extorted the promise of the cam
paign. It Is a plain case Of party be-
trayal through the fundamentally of
powerful party bosses, and the vacilla-
tion and weakness of party candidates.
For example, the ~monopolistic and al
most prohibitive rate on wooden fabrics
prescribed by the Dinglay law were left
practically unchanged in the new law,
while the rates or cotton manufactures,
unaccountable as 1t may seem, were
greatly increased, and this, notwith-
contradicted data was laid before on
gress during the tariff debate showing
that for years past the leading cotton
manufacturers of New England had been
reaping a clear profit of from 25 to over
81 per cent per annum on their capital
stock, and that ever on a greatly In
f1ated capitalization. So it is clear hat
instead of the Payne-Aldrich law being
in compliance with the ante election
promise of the Republican party, it has
still more strongly entrenched monopoly,
and increased still higher the price. Of
necessaries to the people.
In fact, the startling, unwarranted n
audacious advance in the most of living
since the enactment Of that law six
months ago is the most striking event in
current history. What p%retense of justi-
fcation Is put forth by the makers of
that law for its enactment in defiance OF
the public will and in violation of their
party promise? They chant the old, old
song-it is necessary for the protection
of American industries, American work
ingmen and American farmers: This they
do now, as ever, in utter disregard Of
their platform declarations, oft repeated,
that the true measure of protection is
the difference in the cost of production
in this country and competing countries
nAr1ol aAI ~ mi fIeto n1inr tho mall
known fact hat the tariff rates imposed
by the Dingley law and the new law
alike are enormously in excess OF that
difference In cost as to the protection of
American industries it stands admitted
that this new enactment certainly does
protect the already overprotected and
Opulent manufacturing monopolies.
AS to the protection Of American
workingmen,' we have this to say: That
great army Of so-called common laborers
who work outside the protected indus
tries, so far from sharing in the supposed
benefits Of a protective law, are its vic
Tins by
Reason of the Resultant Higher Cost
of Livinq-The amount Of their wages is
in no way dependent upon the tariff, but
depends on the labor man and sup
ply, and upon other conditions in nowise
related to the tariff, while undoubtedly
their living expenses, in common with
all, are directly affected by the burdens
of the tariff taxation. Mechanics trained
as experts in specialties receive In this,
as they do in other countries, higher
wages of mill operatives, but, as in the
case Of common laborerS, their wages
are in no sense dependent IN the tariff,
but depend mainly upon their organiza-
tionS, upon skill and upon the demand
for and supply OF such labor. But this
class, like all others, must bear the bur-
den of the increased cost of living re-
sulting from ~monopolistic control Of our
productive Industries through protective
laws. 1t is a question Of extreme doubt
whether even the operatives in manufac-
turing industries are the recipients OF
any substantial advantage under the eco
nomic system now prevailing. The Re-
publican contends that the item Of labor
constitutes the chief difference in the
cost of production here and abroad, and
only q few years since the Republican
advocacy Of high protection was predi-
Gated almost wholly on the proposition
that the tariff should be high enough to
cover the alleged difference In the labor
cost as between America and competing
foreign countries, thereby, as they con-
tended, equaliZing labor conditions and
maintaining the American wage standard
at home.
But now 1t is known Of all informed
men that the tariff rates of the new law
are far in excess OF the difference In
labor wage at home and abroad. Who
gets the benefit Of that? Not the work.
ingmen, for their wages for the most part
remain the same, and where wages have
been changed in recent months there have
been more reductions than increases;
who gets the benefit? The manufacture
ers. Who foots the bill, who suffers?
The consumers, including the employees
of the manufacturers who, in common
with all, most bear the heavy additional
cost of living. America, the boosted land
q plenty, has become by far the most
expensive country of the world in which
to live. Already we have reached the
Hard to Tell.
Hello! Is this the information ed
itor?"
eyes"
Who IS the president Of Nicara-
guar"