The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-04-06
SENATOR BAILEY'S HERESY
By SAY OYARD

Mir Joseph ". Bailey, senator from Texas, has been explaining to the New York Herald his position on the tariff and his reason for a tax on merchandise that is classed in our commercial and in- dustrial economy as raw materials. There never was a man of more mental audacity than Senator Bailey and his stand on the tariff is a challenge to those democrats who think on the question as Carlisle did and as Bryan does, for Bry- an was ever in accord with the great KentucSian touching tariff taxation.
 If the democratic party shall come to agree with Bailey on the tariff, then we may close the books and stand mute We must hunt up another issue, for the very citadel of protection is taxed raw materials Pig Iron Kelley so declared Nelson w. Aldrich so held. Cannon and Dalzell so believe Sam Randall never gave those fellows any uneasiness, but William L. Wilson and Roger Q. NILS made them walk the floor many night
 Here is a passage from MT. Baiey's preachment that I want to challenger
 Cautiously enough, the charge that I am a. refusal to give our manufacturers dou- ble protection by removing the duty from their raw material while still leaving a duty on their finished products. The men who criticise me seem to think that they can vote for a duty on manufactured ar ticles for the purpose of raising revenue but that I can only vote for a duty on raw materials for the purpose of protec- ton. My tariff philosophy wholly ex- cludes the idea of protection and looks purely and only to revenue.
 ''I believe in duty on wool as well as on wooden goods, but advocate a duty on each for the purpose of raising revenue, and would not levy duty on either for the purpose of protection. There is no sound principle of taxation which re- quires me to exempt the manufacturer from a duty on his imported wool, and tue only argument in favor of free wool l have ever heard or read is that if the manufacturer is allowed to import his wool without the payment of a duty on 1t he can manufacture his goods at a low CT cost. That argument does not con vince me, because it is as true of every other man as it is of the manufacturers and if we are going to relieve anybody from taxation in order to reduce their ex- penses, we ought first to relieve those who are least able to pay their taxes, and who, therefore, stand in the greatest need of relief"
 The fundamental error in the foregoing is the falacy that the manufacturer is a consumer of raw materials. I admit that but little study must convince the lucid mind that the manufacturer is merely an employer of raw materials which he fash ions for the consumer, who pays the taxes on them, and that is why your rob Der tariff baron precisely agrees with Senator Bailey on the subject of tariff taxation of raw materials. When Mir Bailey shows me that the manufacturer pays the tax on raw materials I will come to his view and urge duty on lum- Der, wool coal. and the others. If the manufacturer pays the tax on raw ma terials why did not MT. Bailey insist on a duty on cotton in the bale?
 For example: A manufacturer buys a billet of wood from the lumber trust fashions it into the beam of a blow, and sells the finished implement to renter of a cotton field in Cooke county, Texas. That poor devil with the boil weevil in front of him and Lumber Magnate Kirby in rear of him pays the tariff on every inch of wood and every ounce of iron in that plow--unless the democratic party has been lying about the tariff all it's life If MT. Bailey doesn't know that, let him get the democratic handbook of political