Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1928-06-05
Pease Explains Garner Vote On
Fordney Tariff Act; Sid Hardin
Attacks Co~ngressman's Record

40 Inc IGIaAus
In Saturdays Issue of your paper
there appeared an editorial under
the caption, Garner and the Tariff"
Il was stated in that editorial that
the handful Of followers"-as you
describe those who are against Gar
ner-are misrepresenting Garner and
in the course of the argument offer
ed there appears this statement:
The allegation that he IL opposed
to protection for the farmer is the
fiimsiest Of eamouflage."
IL the opposition to Garner
amounts to but a handful" then
certainly you can afford to be fair
to that handful" and ! am going
to ask that the following reply be
printed.
You deny that Garner is opposed
to protection for the farmer. yet on
page 2131 Of the Congressional Rec
ord reporting the proceedings Of
congress for January q. 1921, you
will find that he himself said: 81
am not a protectioaist." July 2i,
1921. in discussing the tariff ques-
tion he said: "Unless the foreign
debts are RENTED /. and il
exports are to continue +. . there is
no more question N my mind than
that night will follow day that you
must turn toward international free
trade"
On that occasion and in that
speech he referred to what another
congressman had declared in these
words: The gentleman cannot find
in any statement I have ever made
where | spoke Of the benefits to be
derived from a tariff. nor can the
gentleman show where I said that
! would levy IL for protection, seal
ing from l to so per cert"
Now. sir. you will see that IL was
not my followers VINO originated the
statement that Garner was not for
a protective tariff for agriculture.
II was Garner himself who said that
he was not. and who. a lit.i- later.
voted against the emergency tariff
measure brought forward to give the
farmers protection.
In another paragraph you saw of
Nr. Garner: Gle led the fight in
1871 TO increase protection on agri.
cultural products and decreased the
margin Of protection afforded
manufacturers" Then you quote \
named Stengle as declaring that
Jack would 20 right into a lions
cage and fight with its occupants"
That reminds me. During the
Revolutionary war there was a verv
brave British general whose horse
would run away with him and
the opposite direction from the
the moment a battle utarted.
u must have been like that with
Garner IN 1921. III he led any firnt
get protection for the farmer h.
II like that general led his
forces. Maybe he himself would en-
Ter a lions cage with the courage
81 a Daniel. But he rode Old Can.
Gus. and when the hour Of rea, ,est
Caucus took to his heels.
That was the year. sir. wber A.
tariff came before con-
Sress. II extended tariff safeguards
2 tne farmer without giving any
10 n manufacturers. IL
.as designed expressly for the
'truggIing producers OF the nation
did not include n benefits for
others. But john Garner ~o,ed
against IT as o will see by turn
ng 70 page 355. part /, vol. 81 Of the
'eSord Of the 67th congress.
IL IS ell right to attack one who
ares oppose your choice. But II
; All wrong TO say that choice is
eng misrepresented on the tariff
ssue by my supporters, when II i
Us wi words and his own votes
nat are being offered as testimony
gainst him.
You COMPLAIN that the mes now
pposing Garner are the ones who
ave been opposing protection for
gricuiture. You also complain thar +
nat element is trying to block Gar Z
er's efforts to have the tariff com Z
increase the duty on farm c
rcducts. There are no facts to
any such assertions. Those
acking me are free men living in
his district and realizing that they
annot make anything producing z
iculture. unless some favorable ac- i
ion is taken in their behalf by /
ongress. They have searched the /