The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
C O N G R E S S IO N A L RECORD:
CONTAINING
THE PROCEEDINGS AID DEBATES
OF THE
SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION,
SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE.
A7 O X jT J M E
x
l
i y
WASHINGTON:
G O V E R N M E N T P R I N T IN G O FFIC E.
1909.
.
NAM ES A N D
P O S T -O F F IC E A D D E E S S E S
T 'n
TjM ^
'
SENATORS ^ ^ 3
IN THE
FIRST
SESSION
OF
THE
SIXTY-FIRST
CONGRESS.
J am es S. S h e r m a n , V ice-P resid en t, U tica, N . Y.
W il l ia m P. F r y e , P resid en t pro tem pore, Lewiston, Me.
Name.
Home post-office.
^Aldrich, Nelson W___________
Bacon, Augustus O____
Bailey, Joseph W__________
Bankhead, John H_____
^B everidge, Albert J______
Borah, William E ___________
Bourne, Jonathan, jr_________
Bradley, William O__________
Brandegee, Frank B _________
Briggs, Frank O_____________
Bristow, Joseph L___________
Brown, Norris_______________
Bulkeley, Morgan G___ I T
^^Burkett, Elmer J____________
Burnham, Henry E __________
^Burrows, Julius C___________
Burton, Theodore E __ . ______
^✓ Carter, Thomas II___ jA ____
Chamberlain, George E _______
Clapp, Moses E ______________
Clark, Clarence D ____________
Clarke, James P_____^
^ C ]ay, Alexander S__ ________
Crane, W. Murray___________
Crawford, Coe I_____________
Culberson, Charles A_________
Cullom, Shelby M___________
Cummins, Albert B__________
Curtis, Charles______ j _______
^ D a n ie l, John W____ ________
Davis, Jeff__________________
epew, Chauncey M__________
Charles________________
Dillingham, William P_______
Dixon, Joseph M_______ i ____
^-Dolliver, Jonathan P____fiT_
du Pont, Henry A_____ A___
^ E lk in s, Stephen B_____ C M —
Fletcher, D. Upshaw_________
Flint, Frank P______________
Foster, Murphy J____________
^Frazier, James B__
JTrye, William P __
~<£l
^ G allinger, Jacob H.
Gamble, Robert J_
Gore,‘Thomas P ---Guggenheim, Simon
Providence, R. I.
Macon, Ga.
Gainesville, Tex.
Fayette, Ala.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Boise, Idaho.
Portland, Oreg.
Louisville, Ky.
New London. Conn.
Trenton, N. J.
Salina, Ivans.
Kearney, Nebr.
Hartford, Conn.
Lincoln, Nebr.
Manchester, N. H.
Kalamazoo, Mich.
Cleveland, Ohio.
Helena, Mont.
Portland, Oreg.
St. Paul, Minn.
Evanston, Wyo.
Little Rock, Ark.
Marietta, Ga.
Dalton, Mass.
Huron, S. Dak.
Dallas, Tex.
Springfield, 111.
Des Moines, Iowa.
Topeka, Kans.
Lynchburg, Va.
Little Rock, Ark.
New York, N. Y.
Akron, Ohio.
Waterbury, Yt.
Missoula, Mont.
Fort Dodge, Iowa.
Winterthur, Del.
Elkins, W. Va.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Los Angeles, Cal.
Franklin, La.
Chattanooga. Tenn.
Lewiston, Me.
Concord, N. H.
Yankton, S. Dak.
Lawton, Okla.
Denver, Colo.
Resigned March 5, 1909.
Name.
■>Hale, Eugene--------------------Heyburn, Weldon B----ughes, Charles J., j r _ ^ . ohnson, Martin N— '-------Johnston, Joseph F ------------Jones, Wesley L----------------Kean, John----------------- ------Knox, Philander C °-----------La Follette, Robert M--------Lodge, Henry Cabot-----------Lorimer, William--------------McCumber, Porter J----- - a—IcEnery, Samuel D -----A —
JcLaurin, Anselm J-----Os'—
Martin, Thomas S-------------Money, Hernando D -----------Nelson, Knute-------------------Newlands, Francis G---------Nixon, George S----------------Oliver, George T 6--------------Overman, Lee S-----------------Owen, Robert L----------------Page, Carroll S-----------------Paynter, Thomas H -----------Penrose, Boies-------------------Perkins, George C--------------Piles, Samuel H----------------Rayner, Isidor-------------------Richardson, Harry A----------Root, Elihu-----------------------Scott, Nathan B-----------------Shively, Benj. F ----------------Simmons, F. M------------------Smith, Ellison D -----Smith, John Walter—
Smith, Wm. Alden---Smoot, Reed________
Stephenson, Isaac----Stone, William J-----Sutherland, George—
Taliaferro, James P_
Taylor, Robert L-----Tillman, Benjamin R_
•Warner, William-----Warren, Francis E—
Wetmore, George P__.
Home post-office.
Ellsworth, Me.
Wallace, Idaho.
Denver, Colo.
Petersburg, N. Dak.
Birmingham, Ala.
North Yakima, Wash.
Elizabeth, N. J.
Pittsburg, Pa.
Madison, Wis.
Nahant, Mass.
Chicago, 111.
Wahpeton, N. Dak.
New Orleans, La.
Brandon, Miss.
Charlottesville, Ya.
Mississippi City, Miss.
Alexandria, Minn.
Reno, Nev.
Reno, Nev.
Pittsburg, Pa.
Salisbury, N. C.
Muskogee, Okla.
Hyde Park, Vt.
Greenup, Ky.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Oakland, Cal.
Seattle, Wash.
Baltimore, Md.
Dover, Del.
New York City.
Wheeling, W. Va.
South Bend, Ind.
Trenton (R. F. D .), Jones Co.,
N. C.
Florence, S. C.
Snow Hill, Md.
Grand Rapids, Mich,
Provo, Utah.
Marinette, Wis.
Jefferson City, Mo.
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Nashville, Tenn.
Trenton, S. C.
Kansas City, Mo.
Cheyenne, Wyo.
Newport, R. I.
" Elected in place of Philander C. Knox, resigned.
’
5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INDEX.
OLMSTED—Continued.
Petitions arul papers presented by, from
Citizens and individuals 120, 461.
Remarks by, on
Adjourning over 2648.
Extra pay to employees 4570, 4571, 457
Notification to President 55.
I’orto Rico 1006, 2125, 2126, 2465, 2466, 2468, 2470, 2472,
2ol5, 2517, 2518, 2522, 2523, 2723, 2017, 2918, 2910,2930
2931, 2033, 2934.
Presidents traveling expenses 4480, 4481.
Rules of House 28.
Rules of House and power of Speaker. (Appendix 103.)
Tariff bill 1201, 1292.
f
Votes of. See Yr:a- anu-Nay Votes.
OLMSTED, MARTInX ., increase pension (see bill H. Jl. 6717).
OLMSTED, W ILLIAM V., increase pension (see b ill's. 2868).
OLSCAMP, JOSEPH S., increase pension ( see bill IT. R. 10548).
OLSEN, MRS. LAURITZ \
R 3772ti0n in Houso \
pay (H ' Res- 73),/passed 2935,
OLSON, FRED, ALIAS WILLIAM BROWN, pe/sion (see bill
H. R. 10260)
355
OREGON
Bills to amend law relative to collection districts in (see
bills S. 538; II. R. 45, 11132).
Bill to pay war claim of (see bill II. R. 9962).
Bill to issue homestead patents to certain lands in for
mer Siletz Indian Reservation in (see bill H. R. 1)490).
Bill reserving certain public lands for public park in
(see bill H. R. 11934).
Memorial of legislature for establishment of line of
steamships along Pacific coast 255, 308.
Report of Court of Claims on claim of State f t (S. Doc.
28) 1692.
Resolution of inquiry in Senate relative !</ salaries of
postmasters in (S. Res. 72) 4920.
OREGON CITY, OREGON
Bill making appropriation for boat canal and locks at
(see bill H. R. 50).
. /
Bill to, erect public building at (see bill jH, R. 3046).
ORGAN, ROLLIN B„ increase pension (see l/ll II. R. 2043).
ORGANIZED MILITIA. See Militia .
ORINOCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY AND OTHERS
Message W President transmitting report relative to
claims against Venezuela of (S. Doc. 13) 3401.
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
7
Bill to erect public building at (®e bill S. 1387).
OLSON, MAGGIE, increase pensidp (see bill S./15S4).
ORMSBY, JOHN H„ increase pension Gee bill S. 2243).
O’ROURKE, J. M., pension (see bill IT. R. 536).
Blg t229e,stablish a™ y quarteiXaster’s / e p o t at (see bill O’ROURKE, JAMESpnension (see bill’ll. R. 6713).
ORR, ROBERT, increase pension (see bill II. R, S319).
Bill creating an additional diviskm of
ilway Mail Service witli headquarters at (see^
l 542).
ORR, WILLIAM, increase pension (see bill H. R. 12021).
Amendment in Senate making a
iriation for erection ORTH, JACOB G., increase pension (see bill II. R. 1376).
of warehouse for Indian Ser
130.
ORTIZ, JOSE SALAZAR Y, relief (see bill II. R. 0338).
OMAHA GRAIN EXCHANGE
ORTMAN, JULIUS, pension (see bill S. 438).
Telegram relating to duty on barjfej^ 2553.
OSAGE INDIANS. See I n d ia n s .
OMAHA INDIANS. Sec I ndians .
OSAGE RI.VER, MISSOURI
O’MARA, JOHN L., relief (see bill II/R . 42Q1).
Bill to improve (see bill H. R. 2267).
OMWEG, ANNA, pension (see bill ». 1406).
OSBAN, .JESSE, correct military record (see bill II. R. 9892).
ONANCOCK RIVER, VIRGINIA /
OSBORN. ALLEN, increase pension (see bill S. 2522).
Bill to improve (see bill S./2521).
OSBORN, ISAAC G., correct military record (see bill H. R.
O’NEIL, CORNELIUS, increase pension (see bill II. R. 8084).
‘l 1884).
O’NEIL, MARY E., pension (see bill II. R. 3359)1
OSBORN, ISRAEL T., increase pension (see bill II. It. 7722).
O’NEILL, CORA C., pensiort (see bill S. 72).
OSBORN, ROBERT, increase pension (see bill II. R. 8317).
OSBORN, THOMAS E., pension (see bill II. R. 9251).
O NEILL, MICHAEL, increase pension (see bill II. R. 3816).
OSBORNE, DAVID, increase pension (&ee bill IT. It. 7717).
ONIONSKIN PAPER
of Mutual Paper Company relative to tariff on OSMAN, ISRAEL, increase pension (see\bill H. R. 4232).
OSTEEN, RICHARD'S., pension (see bill H. R. 6827).
ONTARIO, OREGON /
OSTHELDER, JOSEPH, increase pension u ee bill IT. It. 3790).
Bill to allow chamber of commerce to bridge Snake River OSTRANDER, BRADFORD G., increase pension (see bill IT. It.
(see bill S. 837).
9600). j
\
OPERTI, ALBERT*, relief (see bill H. R. 1078).
OSTRANDER, 7HEODORE, increase pension (see bill H. R.
6268). /
ORANGE, JAMES, remove charge of desertion (see bill H R
1335). '
*
O’SULLIVAN,/DANIEL, correct military record (see bill H. R.
3834)/
ORANGEBURG', SOUTH CAROLINA
Bill for . relief of German Lutheran Church of (sete bill OTIS, SAMUEL, relief of estate (see bill H. R. 1164),
H. R /7465).
Joint resolution to donate condemned cannon for dec* OTOE AN e/M ISSO UR I.! RESERVATION. See I ndians.
ora^on of monument at (see II. J. Res. 60).
O’TOOLE,/ALLEN EDWARD, AND OTHERS, relief (sfte W1]g
o r a ng es/
S/ 2262; H. R. 9156).
Statistics relating to production of 2567, 2573.
OTT, WILLIAM F., increase pension (see bill II. It. 11865).
OMAHA, NEBRASKA
ORDNANCE AND FORTIFICATIONS
Bill to acquire lands at Cape Henry, Va., for fortification
and coast defense (see bill H. R. 3066). .
OTTAWA, KANSAS
Rill to erect public building at (see bill H. R. 9276)
ORDWAY, CHARLES N., relief of estate (see bill II. R.
11677).
OTTt), JOHN B., increase pension (see bill II. R. 1736)
OTTO, JOHN, increase pension (see bill S. 2G17).
356
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INDEX.
OUACHITA RIVER
Rills to extend time for construction of bridge across
(sco bills 8. 2827; H. R. 0860).
/
Rill to allow Ouachita County, Ark., t© bridge (see bill
II. It. 11572).
OUSIJOY, EDWARD, pension (see bill H. It, 1071).
'Rill for relief of (see bill H. It. 1088).
OVERCAPITALIZATION. See Corporations.
OVERLY, ROBERT II., increase p en sion /see bill H. It. 7854).
OVERLY, WILLIAM H., increase pensiorf (see bill H. R. 8903).
OVERMAN, LEE S. (a Senator from N jrth Carolina)
Attended 2, 15.
/
Appointed on committees 120. /
Amendments offered by, t o .
Tariff bill—cotton ties 3877, 4140.
-------- glass 1370.
------- 1 Immigrant tax 3524, 4293.
-------- "Plate glass 4283, 4284.
- trust made goods 1030, 42SG.
Bills anil joint resolutions introduced by
Alb r it toil, J. C: to increase pension (see bill S. 1840)
1375
Ballinger, James J: to increase pension (see bill 8. 3835)
1374
Benchboard', Caroline: to pension (see bill 8. 1830) 1375.
Buckner, Stephen M: to increase pension (see bill S.
1 S*>7) 1375
Burlington, N; C: to erect public building at (see bill S.
Cnpps!} John D ; to increase pension (see bill S. 1833)
Carroti, James: to pension (see bill 8. 1852) 1375.
Carroll, Smith F: to increase pension (see bill S. 1841)
1375.
I
Carter, Wilson: to increase pension (see bill S. 1847)
] 375
Creasnian, William IJ: to increase pension (see bill S.
Edixe^II 1TT to increase pension (see bill S. 1840) 1375.
Edwards Timothy: to pension (see hill S. 3855) 3375.
Hagan, C h ls k ^ ^ . to increase pension (see hill S. 3S50)
Henderson, Jane: to increase pension (see bill S. 1850)
3375.
(to
Hensley, Elijah P •/1
< increase pension (see hill S. 1839)
3375.
Hess, William, alias William Smith, to increase pension
tsee hill S. 1834) 1374.
Johnson, Stephen: for relief of estate (see bill 8. 1830)
Lawrence, E lza: to pension (see bill S 1843) 1370.
Monteiro, P. C: to increase pension (see bill S. 18o3)
1375.
/
Rector’ Alfred /t o increase pension (see bill S. 1832) 1374.
Roberts, Sophtfonia: to increase pension (see bill >8. 18-14)
Roberts, W llJ- S: to pension (see! bill S. 1838) 1375.
______ t0 increase pension (see bill 8. 1858) 1875.
Rockingham) N. C: to erect public building at (see bill
S! i «28) 8374.
Skipper Ddnlol: to pension (see bill S. 1851) 3375.
Smith Toll!I ■ to increase pension (see bill S. 1848) 1375.
Sprinkle, James R: to increase pension (see bill S. 1842)
1375
Stanton, £ennie: to pension (see bill 8.1X31) 1374.
Stephens/ Edwin: to increase pension (sap bill S. 1854)
Voi'ls/Joseph R: to pension (see bill S. 185\) 1375
Warnslor Seymour R: to pension (see bill S. 1845) 1375.
White, Henry A: to increase pension (see hill S. 1860)
1875,
Petitions aii(l papers presented by, from
Citizens and individuals 1445.
Societies and associations 2604, 3415.
Remarks by, on
Corporation (ax 4028, 4005.
Immigrant tax 1524, 1528, 3156, 4293, 4294, 429S.
Income tax 4110, 4111.
International Harvester Company 3158, 3150.
OVERMAN—Continued.
Remarks by, on
'Soutii and prosperity 3159.
ennessee Coal and Iron Company 3158.
u "iff 1447, 3154, 3158.
agricultural implements 3834,3835,3S53,3854,3855.
plate glass 4283, 4284.
Wages, in Germany 2680.
Votes of,
Y ea-and-N ay Votes.
OVERMAN,^ PATRICK LI., increase pension (see bill H. B.
OVER MIRE, SILAk correct military record (see bill H. R0008).
\
OVERTON, CHARLES'" A., increase pension (see bill H.
10C)0o),
\
OVERTON, E. c., relief ofv^state (see bill H. It. 5387).
OVERTON HOTEL COMPANY, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
Rill for relief (see bill k It. 7955).
overture
lo79).
OWEN,
OWEN,
OWEN,
OWEN,
f r a n k l in
C., increase pension (see bill H. R-
ALFRED^Increase pension face bill II. It. 0701).
BENJAMIN F„ increase pensW (see bill H. R. 913).
HARRY W., pension (see bill HA^t. 2055),
J, It., relief of estate (see bill S.
OWEN/OOHN T- relief (see bill H. R. 553
OWEN NATHANIEL L.. increase pension (see'' (ill H. It. 3094).
OWEN, RACHEL P>„ pension (seo bill S; 3057).
OWEN, ROBERT I . (a Senator from Oklahoma)
Attended 2.
Appointed on committees 120.
Excused from service on Joint Committee on Revision of
the Laws 8.
Amendments offered by, to
Tariff bill—blankets and flannels 3037.
-------- oil 3827.
-------- reduction of schedule rates 2105, 3934, 4282.
-------- woolens 1680.
Bills and joint resolutions introduced by
Absentee Shawnee Indians: for relief (see bill g, 2029)
1508.
Itaca, .Tuan itey: for relief (see bill S. 1974) 3490
Raca, Matins: for relief of estate (see bill s. 1074) 3490,
Baca, Pablo Ciriaco: for relief (see bill S. 3973) 3490'
Baldwin, Frank I): to promote and place on retired list
of army (see bill g. 2603 ) 3154.
Chippewa Indians: for relief of Saginaw Swan Creek
and Black River land of (see bill S. 2638) 8480
Constitution of United States: for amendment relative to
election of Senators (see S. J. Res. 41) 4109.
Courts of United States: to provide against reversal of
judgment in (see bill S. 1967) 1490.’ '
---------to establish probation system in (see bill S. 2633)
3410.
Delaware L inns: to adjudicate claims of (see bill g.
1979) 1490.
Eggert, Fritz: for relief of estate (see bill S. 1977) 1490.
Fuentes, Guadalupe Lujan do: for relief of estate (see
1)111 8. 1970) 3430.
Indians: to amend act to prohibit sale of intoxicants to
(see bills S. 19S0, 1981) 1490.
Jones, Sabhti: for relief (see bill S. 1970) 1490
Kaw^Indians: to adjudicate claims of (see bill g. 1082)
Lepoint, Mrs. Candelaria L. de: for relief (see hill g.
4972) 1409
v
0
Madril, Manuel: for relief (see bill S. 1971) 1490
Marshals and special officers: to pension widows and or
phans of those killed in line of duty (see bill g 2602)
3154.
Miami Indians: for relief (see bill 8. 2C32) 3410
Osage Indians: to enroll certain persons as members of
tribe (see bill S. 1978) 1490.
-------- to determine amount paid by Osagos to “ civiliza
tion fund ” and applied to benefit of other In
dians (see S. J. Res. 24) 1490.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INDEX.
OWEN—Continued.
Bills and joint resolutions introduced by
Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service: to promote
efficiency of (see bill S. 1968) 1490.
Sequoyah—Indian: to erect statue of (see bill S. 2630)
3416.
Tahleqtiah, Okla: to establish fish-hatchery at (see bill
S. 2631) 3416.
Tucker, Joseph B: for relief (see bill S. 1975) 1490.
Williams, M. L: to pension (see bill S. I960) 1490.
Motions and resolutions offered by
Cost of production: for reprint of report of Carroll D.
Wright on (S. Doc. 20, 55th Cong., 3d sess.) 2352.
Dependent children : to print report of conference on care
of (S. Res. 39) 1588.
Independent oil producers and refiuevs: to print pro
ceedings of conference of (S. Doc. 88) 3162.
—------ to print memorial of (S. Doc. 88, pt. 2 ) 3486.
Navajo Indians: to print memorial relative to imprison
ment of (S. Doc. 118) 3913.
Protection's Favors to Foreigners: for reprint of article
by James G. Parsons on (S. Doc. 54 ) 2285, 3191.
The C'ha se of the Sugar Smugglers: to print article
entitled (S. Doc. 60 ) 2410.
Petitions and papers presented by from
Citizens and individuals 3 : i . .
Societies and associations 1489, 3628, 3913.
Remarks by, on
Crime of perjury 3436, 3437.
Davis, Mr: votes of 3916.
Income and corporation tax 1820, 1821, 2082, 2084
2085, 2104, 2105, 4010.
Inheritance tax 3950.
Printing in Record 2410.
Tariff 3251, 3260, 3263, 32(16, 3267, 3268. 3269. 3270. 3271
32<S$.
---------agricultural products 3436.
s , ? ® ’ :i0i0---- cost of production 2550, 2531
---------cotton goods 2863, 2870, 2903, 2904 1905
-------- hides 3661.
-------- incidental protection 2440
---------oil 3823, 3S24, 3826, 3827. 3923.
reduction of schedule rates 3934, 3935
-------- retailers’ prices 2133. 2134, 2135, 2136 2137
-------- sugar 2306, 2308, 2309, 2410. 2530 255]
---------tea 3923.
'
-wood pulp and print paper 3395, 3-896 3405 3406
---------wool prices 3055.
•----——woolen goods 3255, 3256, 3257. 3281
■ ---- woolen yarns 3040, 3041, 3042, 3043, 3044, 3256
3257.
Tariff hill amendments 3917.
Wages in various industries 3265, 3266, 3267. 3268. 3269
3270, 3271. 3272.
Votes of. See Yea-and-N ay Votes.
■
357
03MENT, MARTIN EL, increase pension (see bill II. R. 1264).
OzhlUN, EDWARD O., relief (see bill H. R. 9107).
PACE, JOHN, relief of estate (see bill H. R. 12080).
PACE, RICHMOND, relief of estate (see bill H. R. 11458).
PAljE, WHLLIAM, pension (see bill II. R. 10217).
Pa I'ETTY, ADOLPHUS N., pension (see bill S. 1407).
PACIFIC COAST
/
Bill directing Secretary of War to establish and operate
line of steamers along (see bill S. 428).,
Bill to establish marine fishery station on /(see bill II. R
12002).
Memorial of legislature of Oregon for ^fetablishmeut of
line of steamships along 255. 308.
^Memorial of Portland (Oreg.) ChamberAaf Commerce for
establishment of line of steamships a/ong 1445.
Memorial of Spokane (Wash.) Chamb^t of Commerce for
\ establishment of line of steamships glong 1445.
PACK, GEORGE W„ pension (see bill H. H. 11323).
PACK, HARRISON, correct military record (see bill H. R,
9891).
PACK, THEODORE, pension (see bill II. R. 7046)
PACK, WILLIAM, increase pension (se6 bill H. R. 8994).
PACKARD, JOHN A., increase pensioa (see bill S. 1415)
PACKER.
J. AND MRS. R. V., rqfief of estate (see bill S,
25rtt).
PADDOCK, |?ENSON W., pension (s4e bill II. R. 3899).
PADEN, EMERSON E., pension (s^e bill S. 1264)
PADGETT, LEMUEL P. (a Representative from Tennessee)
Attended 17.
Appointed on committees iTtlDL
Leave of absence granted fo 3223.
Bills and joint\resohitimis introduced by
Alexander,\fi. M. D: for/relief (see bill H. R. 5434) 393.
Amis. Jonathan: for relief (see bill H. R. 5381) 393
Anderson, Josephine O / for relief (see bill H. R. 5441)
394.
\
Anderson, Stephen: to/pen si on (see bill H. R. 5359) 392.
Atchison, JohmB. and /Clifton E: for relief (see bill H. R
11688) 4491.\
/
Bailey, S. IL, s i; for/relief (see bill H. R. 5365) 392.
Baugh, Joseph W., si: for relief of heirs (see bill H R
5421) 393
for relief (see bill H. R. 5376) 393
Beasley, William
Beiser, Joseph:
icrease pension (see bill H. R. 5355)
392.
Birdsong. John
for relief of estate (see bill II r
5398) 393.
\
’ *
Bolton, Benjamiij for relief of estate (see bill H. R.
5389 ) 393.
Brewer, II. J :
r e lie f\se e bill H. R. 5369) 393.
Prison, J. J : foi relief of estate (see bill IL R. 5402) 393
Buck, Randall,p r Randall ,Conn: for relief (see bin u p
5432 ) 393. /
\
Butt, Mitchell H : for relief <see bill H. R. 11682) 4491
Buyers, N. M : for relief of estate (see bill H. R. 5413)
Caldweii, B .IH : for relief of estate (see bill H. R. 5388)
o9o.
I
\
'
Campbell, JAmes M : for relief (^ e bill II. R. 116871 4491
Cheairs, N./F: for relief (see bill H. R. 5380) 393
Ci5384<)S3 ^ IitClie11 J : f°r reUef ° ^ state ( see* Dill H. R
C1535;> ) i v i GV C: t0 hlCreaSe peu^ ?n <see bill II. R.
C1H^°R.^H695)<4491 .U
L° dge
relief (see bill
CliftonJTenn., Cumberland PresbyteriarCChurch • w
lief tfsee bill IL R. 11671) 4491.
\
’ t0r re'
Columbia, Teun., St. Peter's Prote«i<)\f ^ •
Clnirch: for relief (see bill II. R. 5428) 3TL Episcopal
Curry, Nathan: for relief of heirs (see bill IL R. 5439)
D ill/id , L ydia: for relief (see bill H T? 1100c\
Ef r ”' Edword W:
« 5? ( «
EAing, Joseph: for relief (see bill H.
r.
11679) ±m
358
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INDEX.
I'.UMIKTT *-OIlUiHH'il.
Hills and joint resolutions introduced by
Ezell, Amasa: for relief of heirs (see bill H. It. 5422)
393.
PA D GETT—Coi dinned.
Bills and joint resolutions introduced by
Lewis, Meriwether: to erect monument to (see bill U- v
393.
. r)
Sldllern, Martha B: for relief of estate (see bill in
5397) 893.
\
4 QQ„
Smith, Mumford: for relief (see bill H \It. 5430) 393Smith, William B: for relief of estate \( see bill H.
5385) 393.
\
«,
Smith, William H: to increase pension moo bill si10263) 2481.
\
.
Speed, John M: for relief (see bill II. It. 1X686) 4491Sprott, Blythe: for relief of estate (see b ill'll. B393.
A
Sprott, James P: for relief (see bill II. It. 536% 393Stevens, Marcus: for relief (see bill II. It. 53830 3Jo.
Stoclcard, S. J: for relief of estate (see bill H.ML m
398.
rt0, w n i
Stone, William: for relief (see bill H. It. 11068)
Teas, J. XV: to remove charge of desertion (see bid J •
5308) 392.
.
R01-1
Tennessee Grand Lodge, Independent Order ol uu«
lows: for relief (see bill II. It. 11672) 4491.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INDEX.
485
WIHg HT, J. K., pension (see bill H. R. 86S7).
WRIGHT, JACOB, increase pension (see bill H. R. 4843).
W R IG lX JAMES F., increase pension (see bill H. R. 3107).
WRIGHT, 3DHN M., pension (see bill H. R. 7966).
WRIGHT, MSRY L., increase pension (see bills H. R. 1373,
9084).X
WRIGHT, NANCY^L, relief (see bills H. R. 2473,12191).
WRIGHT, ORSON, in ten se pension (see bill H. R. 7084).
WRIGHT, PHILLIP D ^ V lie f (see bill H. R. 5604).
WRIGHT, ROBERT T., inct^ase pension (see bill H. R. 598S).
WRIGHT, SILAS, increase pelteion (see bill S. 2092).
WRIGHT, THOMAS G., relief of-estate (see bill H. R. 4095).
WRIGHT, WALTER W., increase pension (see bill H. R. 11479).
WRIGHT, WARREN, relief (see bill H. R. 3921).
WRIGHT, WILLIAM D„ relief of estateSlsee bill S. 3146).
WRIGHT, WILLIAM HENRY, increase pension (see bill H. R.
141).
WRIGHT, WILLIAM SWIFT, pension (see bill'll. R. 3437).
WRIGHTS, DANIEL, increase pension (see bill H?\R. 3480).
WRIGHTSEL, HENRY, increase pension (see bill 11/R. 4557).
WRIGLEY, MARY E., increase pension (see bill S. '
WRITS OF ERROR. See Courts of U nited S tates
WROE, MARY J., pension (see bill H. R. 7454)
w f l f f , F r e d e r i c k , pension (see bill h . r . 327).
WIINDER, JACOB N., pension (see bill H. R. 3S32).
WYOMING STOCK GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION
Letter relative to tariff on hides 3562.
WYTHE, GEORGE, erect shaft at grave of (see II. J. Res„40).
WYTHEVILLE, VIRGINIA
/
Bill to erect public building at (see bill H. R. 19).
XANDRY, AMELIA, pension (see bill S. 841).
YACHTS. See also V essels.
Statistics relating to tax on 4875.
YAGKEY, N. BENTON, pension (see bill II. R. 11365).
YAGER, CHARLES A., pension (see bill II. R. 9098).
YAGER, RACHAEL E., pension (see bill II. R. 2995).
YAKEY, WILLIAM H. H., increase pension (see bill H. R. 826).
YAKIMA RESERVATION. See I ndians .
YALE, FRED M., relief (see bill H. -Tt. 2015).
YALOBUSHA RIVER, MISSISSIPPI
Bill for survey of (see bill II. R. 5168).
YANCEY, JAMES P., relief oDestate (see bill II. R. 5235).
YANCY, JOHN, relief of estate (see bill II. R. 1225).
YAQUINA RIVER, OREGON
Bill making appropriation to improve (see bill II. R. 2).
YARBOROUGH, ELIAS, increase pension (see bill II. R. 2421).
YARBRA, C. A. M., pension (see bill II. R. 1204).
YARBRAUGH, F. M., relief (see bill S. 1106).
/YARBROUGH, F. M., relief (see bill H. R. 6545).
YARBROUQH, SAMUEL H., relief (see bill H. R. 5611).
WURDEMANN, FERDINAND H., incrase pension (see bill YARD, ALEXANDER A., increase pension (see bill H. R. 5278).
H. R. o276).
YARD,..VIRGINIA, pension (see bill S. 378).
WI RZBACH, EMIL F., increase pension (see bill H. R. 3110). YARXELL, DAVID L., increase pension (see bill H. R. 4556).
WYATT, HIRAM C., increase pension (see bill H. R. 4460).
YARNELLc^iMES S., increase pension (see bill II. R. 8250).
WYATT, J. D., increase pension (see bill H. R. 9017).
YTES, GILBERT, relief (see bill II. R. 9S64).
WYATT, JAMES L., increase pension (see bill II. R. 4459).
YATES, MRS. J/W -, relief (see bill H. R. 7614).
WYATT, STEPHEN II., increase pension (see bill H. R. 40:
YATES, JACKSON, pension (see bill H. R. 10220).
WYATT, WILLIAM T., increase pension (see bill H. R.
YATES, MIRIAM P., Increase pension (see bill II. R. 1076).
WYBLE, WILLIAM F„ pension (see bill S. 3176)
YDRIS, JAJI BIN, relW (see bill S. 1031).
WYERS, JOHN A., pension (see bill H. R. 73S).
YEA-AND-NAY VOTES IN HOUSE
WILDER, GEORGE W., increase pension (see bill s. 1206).
Adjourn 1120, 3411. .
Appeal from decision of Chair 4439.
WYLIE, ANDREW G., increase pension (see bi)I S. 1304).
Assistant to the House Rally clerk: on motion to recom
WYLLY, FREDERICK R., relief of estate (sec: bill II. R. 2392)
mit resolution to Committee on Accounts 4660.
WYMAN, THOMAS, pension (see bill II. It. 9&3).
Census: on bill (II. R. 10983)^ making appropriations for
expenses of Thirteenth 3785.
WYMORE, NEBRASKA
Election of Speaker 18.
\
Rljj ^ i 463)USe Slte for I)ubIic/buii(ling at (see bill
Expenses of extra session of Congress: on joint resolu
tion (II. J. Res. 45) making a'fmropriations to pay 1341.
Income tax: on joint resolution, (S. J. Res. 40) for
WYNKOOP, GERRIT C., increase pension (see bill H. It. 9171)
amendment to Constitution to provide for 4440.
WYNN, NOAH W., increase pensiyfi (see bill S. 1176).
Order of business 2723, 4441, 4754
Rivers
and harbors: on joint resolufton (S. J. Res. 33)
WYNNE, JOSEPH, pension (see'bill H. R. 2S59).
relating to unexpended balances or^ippropriation for
WYOMING
improvement of 3616.
Rules of House: on resolutions for adoption of 20, 21, 33.
Bills granting lands to State (see bills S. I860. 2043)
Special orders: on resolution (H. Res. (w) for special
Bill to establish fish-cultural station in (see bill"S 10391
order for bill (H. R. 1438) to provide revenue,
Joint resolution granting additional lands under Carev
,
Act to (see S /J . Res. 11).
y
equalize duties, and encourage the industries of
the United States 1118, 1119
J<)oitji'esohiti°n to establish winter game reserve in (see
on resolution (H. Res. 89) for special 'Crder for
bill (II. It. 1438) to provide revenue, Equalize
Memorial of legislature of Washington for creation of re
serve for American elk in 115, 127, 199.
duties, and encourage the industries \ f the
United States 4384, 4385.
Memorial of legislature concerning final proof of setflers
undgr the reclamation act 115, 457.
Tariff bill (II. It. 1438) 1301.
-------- -on conference report on 4754, 4755.
Memorial of legislature relative to tariff on hides and
vfool 390, 1060, 16S9.
-------- on amendments proposed:
--------- barley 129G.
Memorial of legislature against reduction of dutv on
--------- hides 1297, 129S.
S sugar 8.
y
—------ lumber 1294, 1295, 1296.
/
Memorial of legislature relative to creating forest re
-------- petroleum 1299.
serves 1567.
--------- products of North America Smith
Memorial of legislature relative to homestead laws 1567.
______ t i X r rli29A nd ‘SlandS ° f Western Hemisphere’ 12o £ tral
Memorial of^ legislature relative to reclamation of public
\
7
V m, m
t ncy
ionbin (H. e . 11570) 4583,
-M
w
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INDEX.
518(5
YEA-AND-NAY VOTES IN SENATE
Adjourn 3900.
Bucket shops: on amendment to tax 4244.
Census: on conference report on bill (11. it. I0.i.s) to
provide for taking the Thirteenth and subsequent
decennial censuses 1410.
Corporation t a x : on amendment providing for 40«>,l, 4061,
4002, 4000.
„
,
______ on amendments providing for exemptions fiom
operation of 4234, 4235, 4230.
Court of customs appeals: on amendnicnts providing for
appointment of 4225.
Income tax: on motions to postpone consideration of
amendment providing for _4.>7, 3138.
---------on joint resolution (S. J. Bes. 40) for amendment
to Constitution providing for 4120, 4121.
-------- on amendment providing for 42- n.
™ ' l p p C » n d Bf on
,'dative to snmting
_____ o ^ S o n T r S e f J o Committee on the PLUlp.
pines amendment relating to duties on imports
Trices in United1 States: on r ^ ^ ^ r ^ a l i e u e d ex
select committee to Investigate relative to alleged ex
orbitant and unreasonable 214D.
Itocord of votes on amendments to bill II. R. 1438 4.>SS
Record of every vote on ta riffb iii from May o to July
8, 1909 (S. Doc. 153) 4™““4818, 4870,
Tariff bill (H. It. 1488) 4310.
—
%
1 5 3 5 ™
" . in senate (S. C. Ilea. 8)
to S e c t enrolled bill 4953, 4954.
---------on amendments proposed:
*---------agricultural implements ->048, 3859, 418-.
---------aspbaltum 4277.
=
S f S m 2.'tV .n d chromnto
n o t .* 2237.
2201.
■—— -..cash registers 3800.
--------- china ware 1911.
i
--------- cigars : Philippine 3251.
“
S & f S t h 2800, 2872, 2872, 2874, 2001.
■ ---- cotton gloves 2915.
--------- cotton ties 3899, 4290.
--------- cotton window hollands 28 * •
--------- customs commission 4uau.
--------- cutlery 2152.
10ftS
i--------- earthern or stone ware 1
• 0Q4g>
--------- farming implements and to
--------- glass: window 3.11*0.
--------- grain bags 3873.
,,770 4273.
--------- hides 3055. 3650, 3607, 371 o, « g207, 3251, 3335, 3338.
--------- Imports from Philippine lsianus
,
--------- iron, round, etc. 204V.
--------- iron and steel 3881.
--------- iron ore 1995.
--------- load 1838, 1880, 1891.
-------- lead: white 2288.
-------- leather 3709, 3770.
--------- lemons 2578.
n 0200
--------- linotype machines 2180.
and^other^uilding matorials 2330, 2337.
--------- meat products 2003.
. 0203
--------- metal: articles of, n. s. P- ■ 4 9 3 5 408G, 4100.
--------- minimum and maxlmum r a e e s ^ o d ,
--------- monazlte sand and thorite 3814.
----------orange mineral 1750.
3483.
--------- paper : print
o* b»,
--------- paper: writing 4180.
--------- petroleum 3827, 427-.
--------- Philippine sugar 3207, 3338.
: K iijgSK f
B
0
»
8207, 8251, 3885, 8338.
______ pig iron 3799. 3800.
= r i; ia f h i&
. . 2237
--------- printing presses 2100, —03.
■ ----quebracho 2217.
■
---- razors 2150, 2151.
-salt 3890.
i sewing machines
2ooog-sugar 2442, 2443, 3207, 3338.
tariff experts 408.>,
tea 3934.
typewriters 2190, 220_.
umbrella frames 2155.
white lead 2233.
window ginss 3390.
no*r,
window hollands, cotton 2877.
— wool aloo,3'3005, 3011. 3032, 3035, 3030, 3037, 3044,
8054, 3001, 3070, 312^ 3130, 3133, 3134, 3139, 4313.
--------- works of art 3171.
1
•—------zinc 8341.
Tobacco: on amendments relating to tax on 4264.
Urgent deficiency appropriation bill (H. It. 11570) 4G79,
PAGER, JOSEPH, pension (see bill H. R. 1717).
LAGER, MILTON, increase pension (see bill S. 2494)
i
Joint resolution to appoint commission of physiqJtDis to
test the arsenization theory for prevention Of (
H. J. Res. 19).
/
I
y e l i A w s t o n e RIVER
ir improvement of
imorial of legislature of Montana for
", 556, 1355.
/
YEOMAnV FRED, pension (see bill H. R. 4474).^
YEWELL,V n DREW, relief (see bill H. R. 6059 V.
YINGST, N.\uTIAN, increase pension (see bill IE R. 5555).
YOAOHUM, .mC0B, increase pension (see bil/s. 791)<
YODER, HIR aV l ., increase pension (see biJ H. R. 4257).
YONGE, IlENRV,, relief of estate (see b i l ls /. 2405, 3119).
Papers witukrawn in House 4489.
YOOST, ROBERT®., increase pension ( s « bill H. R. 1828).
YORK, ANDREW
increase pension (afee bill H. R. 3905).
YORK, CHARLES E ,\n croase pension /se e bill H. R. 10032).
YORK, JOSEPH L, reim (see bill H. / . 3933).
YORK, RUSSELLA ,T., Tension (see bill H. R. 8091).
YORK, W. C., relief of estate (see b / s S. 595; H. It. 5455).
YORKSTON, MARIA, p e n s i\ (see bill H. R. 5747).
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA
Bill providing for military highway from Jam estow n to
(see bill H. It. 0697).
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK]
Joint resolutions to allow oily and county of San Fran
cisco, Cal., to exchange la n |s In (see S. J. Res. 4; H. J.
Ites. 20, 28).
YOST, DAVID J., Increase pons ion Vsoe bill H. R. 1550).
YOST, IIENRY, increase pension ( s e lb ill S. 3044).
YOTJMANS, E .,je lle f (see bRl H. It. V>59).
YOUNG, ANDREW J., increase pension (see Dill H. R. 2448).
YOUNG, ANNA L., pension (see bill H. R. 4512).
YOUNG, ARMAND D., relief of estate ( s * bill II. It. 9593).
YOUNG, CHRISTOPHER, increase pension (see bill H. R1970).
YOUNG, DANIEL K.
Letter relative to blending of coffee 675A
YOUNG, DARIUS, increase pension (see bill If. R. 10191).
YOUNG, FRANCES, pension (see bill H. It. 7712).
YOUNG, FRANK II.,/convey certain lands to (see bill S. 1870).
YOUNG, FRANKLIN D., increase pension (see bill H. It. 3902).
YOUNG, GEORGE H., increase pension (see bills If, R. 5535,
5740).
YOUNG, H. OLIN (a Representative from Michigan)
Attended 37.
Appointed on committees 5091.
Bills and joint resolutions introduced by
Army Engineer Corps: to increase efficiency of (sea bill
II. R. 7117) 1344.
Carey, Edward Joseph, alias Edward Joseph Fitzliarris:
for'relief (see bill H. It. 6512) 1062.
Courts of United States: to regulate issue of injunctions
from (see bill II. It. 10890) 3627.
1
* Ilelmka, Thomas: to increase pension (see bill H. E$ 1 0 ) 1062.
....
Isfpeming, Mich: to erect public building at (see bin
II. R. 6280) 1059.
„ ,
Mackinac Island, M ich: providing for salary and allow
ances of postmaster at (see bill H. It. 6513) 1002.
'Marquette, Mich: to construct breakwater in harbor at
(see bill H. It. 6279) 1059.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SEN ATE.
1909.
1409
Mr. MONEY. Mr. President, I heard w ith a great deal of in
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nevada terest the remarks of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. N e w lands J. It happened that during the taking of the last census
yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
I was in the city, in a very heated term. I do not now recollect
Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly.
Mr. GALLINGER. I w ill state to the Senator that Mr. why I was here. I recollect that I heard through the papers
Emery was an old resident of Washington, that he came from that seven ladies had fallen prostrated a t their desks in the
my own State, and he w as mayor of the city of Washington at building down there, overheated or overworked or something.
one time. He was a man of the highest personal and business I went down there and interviewed Governor Merriam, who was
integrity, and. from the information 1 get, his property is being the superintendent, a most excellent gentleman in every re
sold without any middlemen or without any rake off to anybody. spect. He was kind enough to go over the building with me,
Beyond a doubt, it is very cheap property at the price a t which and I found that it w as a veritable hothouse. The superin
tendent had very pleasant rooms and so had the important
it is offered to the Government.
Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. President, I have no reason to doubt clerks; but the mass of the women, who labor in tabulating
the good faith of the transaction or the reasonableness of the statements and making out cards and I do not know what else,
labor there under difficulties that would prostrate a dray horse.
price.
It is not humane, it is not decent, to have the employees of
Mr. BACON. W ith the permission of the Senator, I will say
this
Government at work in such a place. The men can take
that I did not intend to be understood as casting any reflection
on anybody. I asked in good faith, because I did not know; I care of themselves somehow, but these women can not. They
desired to know, I w as entitled to know, and I am glad now are not at work for the Government for their health or for
anything but the stress of hard circumstances that compel them
that I do know.
Mr. GALLINGER. I can assure the Senator from Georgia to work for the Government, and they are entitled to good pay
that I had no thought he asked the question in any other spirit and they are entitled to good quarters. The health of those
people ought to be considered. I do not care bow much delay
than that of getting information.
Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. President, I wish to say that I have it takes or how much money it costs, we ought to suffer the
no reason to doubt the good faith of the transaction so far as delay and undertake the expenditure in order to secure the
the owners of the property are concerned, and I have no reason comfort and the health and the lives of these people. They do
to doubt the reasonableness of the price, but I do question the not forfeit their right as citizens and human bemgs because
suitableness of the location. I believe that the Government they become employees of the United States Government.
I have been through other places in this city where other
should at some time acquire the block in question as a part of
the great project of improving the city and improving the employees were at work, because I wanted to see for myself
grounds about the Capitol, but I do not believe that this prop what i had so often heard, and the conditions have been such
that they would be incredible to one who had not undertaken to
erty should be acquired for this purpose.
I
believe humanity demands that the Senate of the Unitedlook for himself.
States should adhere to this amendment, reasonable as it is,
As this is an opportunity to rectify what I consider an
and permit the Government to exercise the judgment, which enormous wrong, I shall agree wTitli the Senator from Nevada
necessarily we can not exercise here, to inquire into the facts to disagree to this report and let it go back m order that the
and come to a speedy conclusion, whether that conclusion be Senate may insist upon its amendments.
the acceptance of the present site or the construction of a
I have nothing to say about the civil-service scheme and the
proper building upon some other site to be selected by the Gov work in the civil service except to say that I think the civil
ernment. For that reason I shall oppose the adoption of the service itself is the biggest fraud and sham and humbug in
report.
this whole country. I do not believe in it, because I know how
Mr. McCUMBER. Mr. President, I wish to correct one error it works. I know that the greatest apostles and the greatest
that seems to be quite prevalent here, and that is that the preachers of this new doctrine are those who violate it every
amendment which I offered and which w as adopted by the day of their lives. The men who make the loudest professions
Senate, and which the conferees agreed should go out, w as in
conflict in any way with the provision in the census bill allow are continually in the breach of the law.
I also know that when I was informed in the last census that
ing the director to select anyone who is qualified by previous
work without this examination. It is not in conflict with it, as I could make twelve temporary appointments for six months
one would think by the argument that w as made by the Senator I did not ask anybody to come from Mississippi. I would not
ask anybody to come here for six months employment and spend
from Texas.
I
want to speak with reference to another matter also, andthree months of it in coming here and going back home, and
that is as to this being general legislation. The House sent risk the chances of the examination. So I appointed only three,
here a bill in which they repealed a part of the general legisla whom I found here, who wanted the places. Most of the others
tion relating to the civil service. The House is in no position, I never saw in my life beforeor since, but they were people, I
therefore, if we adopt their clause which repeals a part of the believe, who belong here generally in the District.
There are thousands of poor women in this D istrict to-day
civil-service law for the benefit of this bill, to object if we
should also ask to add to the civil-service law a provision which who live, God only knows how, who are trying to keep the
may be called “ general legislation.” In other words, if they by w olf from the door, some of them with the responsibilities of
a bill affect general legislation by an amendment, then they aged parents, some of them widows with children, who would
can not object to our affecting general legislation also by an be very glad to get these crumbs that fall from the master’s
amendment, the one adding to, the other taking away. That is table Occasionally. I do not see why they should not have it.
Why should any Senator insist upon dragging people two or
the only difference in the world.
The Senator from Texas stated that it was an injury to any three thousand miles to come here to do six mouths’ service
of these people to come from the States and go into this gov or a year’s service? I quite agree with the Senator from
ernment employment. If it is an injury that he wants to pre Texas when he said, a while ago, that it w as a cruel kind
vent, is it not equally an injury to those who are in the city ness to a young man to bring him from home and put him
here who are put into government employment, and remain in public employment here. There he is an individual, and
there the whole length of their lives, and have to be generally here he is a number. He loses his individuality, lie loses his
supported by the Government or by some charitable institution initiative, and he loses his citizenship. It is almost impossible,
I suppose, to get along altogether with women in these minor
when they get through?
Afl the Senators who have spoken upon this question have clerical positions, but in such service I would take every man
agreed with me that the legislation is right and along proper out of government employment as far as it could be done.
I hope that the Senate will disagree to the report and insist
lines, while they may say that it ought to be amended in some
little particular. That could be done in conference. Every upon this humane amendment.
one of them also agrees that the injustice that is practiced
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. K ean in the chair). The
under the present law is enormous. Every one of them will hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the Chair lays before the
agree that this will to a considerable extent be remedial legis Senate the unfinished business, which w ill be stated.
lation against such injustice.
The S ecretary. A bill (H . K. 1438) to provide revenue
That being the case, I can see no reason why the report equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United
may not go back to the conferees and let the conferees see if States, and for other purposes.
they can not make such a modification as would be agreeable
Mr. HALE. I ask that the bill be informally laid aside
both to the Senate and the House. If that could not be done,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine asks
the Senate will be in session to-morrow, and I would make no unanimous consent that the unfinished business be informallv
objection against the adoption of the report.
laid aside. The Chair hears no objection.
“ any
XLIV------89
1410
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Mr. HALE. I hope that we may have a vote on the confer
ence report very soon, and thaJ/Hio Senate may then proceed
with the unfiiiished^niHlness.
Mr. NEWLANJFfs< Mr. P^sident, the sugjfestion comes to me
from quite a
thiG^&lwuU^mJ^
I'eaiim^O^ncnt
would onnhh'/W^ M
t
j
partleular turest Ion witl/refercnee to the housing of the Cetsus
Oilice, h u ^ s 1 imderjftnnd it, the rules prevent that, a&r iW s
ii" that pa1
to expense our opinio,
only
lire ajf
by rejecting J-hwep;
am
tffi
so unde^
TS-rn-||^sft)TXT! Ol4tflOER
for the lain
housing
Mr. NEWLANDS. So all wh
have to vote for tlie rejeeof the Census Olliee will neeessi
tlon of the report.
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I desire to say only a word. I
have no doubt, ns stated by Senators on the floor, that the propo
sition for the sale and purchase of this particular lot is one be
yond cftticfsin, luit r confess my curiosity was excited by the
fiiet Ilent the extraordinary position should be taken that that
locality should he selected, and that alone, and that the slight
opportunity for the Government to exercise any discretion was
peremptorily denied. That is a strange thing to me. If the
proposition were one which rejected that locality there might
be some reason in the contention of those who oppose the Sen
ate amendment • hut when the Senate amendment recognizes
the ability ip the last resort to take that locality if it should lie
found necessary and simply gives the opportunity to select some
more desirable locality if it shall lie found to he practicable, I
can not see upon .what condition such a. position is assumed.
I do not desire to detain the Senate further than to say that,
hi common with other Senators, dining the toil yeats since that
building has been occupied it has frequently been my duty to
visit it and I have never visited it but what I have been im
presses by the fact that in the whole city of Washington there
is not a locality more unfit for the purposes to which it is put,
owing to the circumstance that there have to be congregated
there several thousand people, subjected to all the iiiconveniences and, to more than inconveniences, the inhumanities
which are necessarily found there In the heated season of (lie
year, when they must be at work. I ha\c personally known of
instances such as that narrated by the Senator from Missis
sippi [Mr. Money], where delicate women have succumbed un
der the conditions, which are sufficient to overcome strong men.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to
the conference report. [Putting the question. | J he noes ap
pear to have it.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. I should like to have the exact proposi
tion upon which we are to vote reported to the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to
the report.
Mr. BEVERIDGE I am aware of that perfectly; but what
I want to know before I vote, and several other Senators also,
is exactly the proposition in the legislative form in which it
appears In the hilt before we vote. We can not vote upon what
we may gather from a debate, more or less necessarily discur
sive. At least 1 shall not vote without knowing upon what I
am voting.
Mr. IIALE. This is a case that comes up every day in the
Senate. It is simply the question whether the report shall be
accepted.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. I am aware of that.
Mr. HALE. The report has been made, it lias been read and
printed, and the question is simply upon its adoption. Its read
ing can not be called for again, because it has already had its
reading.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. I am perfectly aware that it Is the cus
tomary question that comes before the Senate, as to whether
a report shall bo agreed to or not. I am also aware that not
in one case in a hundred, on the question of agreeing to a conforenee report, are the yeas and nays called for. There have
been two propositions of some kind or other debated here at
considerable length. Those two propositions are told in a few
brief words in the bill. So far as I am concerned, before I vote
1 want to know exactly the legislative form in which they are
put. I think that is a reasonable request to make before voting.
Mr. IIALE. The question is always on the adoption of the
report.
report llKVKKIDGB- 1 know the question is on adopting the
Will tbe Senator from Indiana permit me
,l*a+
filr as 1 have heard the debate objection is
mane only as to two amendments?
A pril 20,
Mr. BEVERIDGE. Yes; and I want to have those amendmer
read.
/ . NEWLANDS. One amendment relates to the civil servt.lie amendment in which the .Senator from Nojrfli Dakota
"cCuMB*»L4£-interest«d.^Thie'qtjuer reliLfcfcmhe housing
______ ^ „
_ Bce, w l(W T w ^ W l^ u ait^ ^ N (^ ^ . The two
amendments arc numbered 15 and 37. As I/uuderstand it,
disagreement has been expressed upon the/noor of the Senate
as tojl^Kaction of the conferees regard
met
.trj>^TGlVTCRf]^rt^l1Te41^r^"aim'fHlnients,/y.,
been reported to the Senate in far less/Hind/tlum the disission has occupied.
^
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Tire Secretary will call tlie
roll on agreeing to the conference report.
The Secretary called the roil, and the result was announced-"
yeas 32, nays 43, as follows:
Aldrich
Bailey
Briggs
Bristow
Brown
Burrows
Carter
Clapp
Bacon
B anldiond
Borah
Bradley
Brandegee
Bulkeley
Burkett
Burnham
Chamberlain
Clark, Wyo.
Clay
Beverklgo
Bourne
Burton
Culberson
Clarke, Ark.
Crane
Crawford
Cullom
Cummins
Curtis
Dillingham
Elkins
Fletcher
Frye
Gal linger
Gamble
Guggenheim
Hale
Ileyburn
Kean
NAYS— 43.
Daniel
.Tones
Dick
Dodge
Dixon
McCumbor
du Pont
McLaurln
Flint
Money
Foster
Nelson
Frazier
Newlands
(lore
Overman
Hughes
Owen
J ohnson, N. Dak. ' Page
Johnston, Ala.
Payntcr
NOT VOTING— 10.
Davis
Oliver
Depew
Penrose
Dolllver
Shively
McEnery
Simmons
La Follette
Martin
Nixon
Perkins
liicliardson
Boot
Stone
Taliaferro
Piles
Itayner
Scott
Smith, S. C.
Stephenson
Sutherland
Taylor
Tillman
Warner
Wetmoro
Smith, Md.
Smith, Mich.
Smoot
Warren
So the report was rejected.
Mr. BAILEY. I want to submit a parliamentary inquiryTli(> vote just taken, as I understand, sends the bill back to
conference?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands.
Mr. BAILEY. Does it send it back to tlio same conferees?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands.
Mr. BAILEY. Then I ask to he excused from service on the
conference committee. In view of my opinion and the vote of
the Senate, it is clearly improper that I should serve on the
committee, and so I ask to ho excused.
Mr. ALDRICH. The bill does not go back to the same coni'
mittee, unless some motion is made upon the subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair so understands.
Mr. ALDRICH. It is usual for the Senator who lias the bU1
in charge to make the motion.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I was not aware of the practice, MI*
President. This is my first performance on a conference com
mittee. I submit the motion that the Senate further insist upon
its amendments disagreed to by the House of R epresentatives
and ask for a further conference with the House on the dis
agreeing votes of the two Houses, the conferees on the part of
the Senate to be appointed by the Chair. I trust that the Sena1
tor from Texas will consent to
toferve.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I have expressed the opiih°u
that that amendment was a bad one and that it ought to b°
yielded. Entertaining that opinion when the Senate entertain®
the opposite opinion, I do not believe, in justice to the Senate
or in justice to myself, that I can consent to serve, and I
will not.
Tlie PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin
moves that the Senate insist upon its amendments, aslc for nf
further conference with the House on the disagreeing votes 01
the two Houses thereon, and that tlie Chair appoint the con
ferees on the part of the Senate. Is there objection? Tim
Chair hears none.
The Chair appoints as conferees on tlie part of tlie Senate— -"J
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I ask to have substituted tlie nam e oi
the Senator from Florida [Mr. T aliaferro ] for that of
Senator from Texas [Mr. B a il e y ] as one of the conferees on
the part of tlie Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair appoints as con
ferees on behalf of the Senate the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr*
La F ollette], the Senator from Maine [Mr. H alic], and *d*e
Senator from Florida [Mr. T aliaferro ],
1489
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
1909.
ENROLLED JOINT RESOLUTIONS SIGNED.
Whereas the immediate improvement of our inland waterways is
absolutely necessary to enable them to handle their part of the increased
of this vast region: Therefore be it
A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. W. J. tonnage
R esolved by the Commercial Club of Tulsa, Okla., That we ask the
Browning, its Chief Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the President-elect to bring to the attention of Congress, in his call for a
House had signed the following enrolled joint resolutions, and special session, the Imperative need of a comprehensive inland waterwavs improvement plan which shall he adequate and permanent; and
they were thereupon signed by the V ice-President:
that we ask him to urge an appropriation of not less than $50,000,000
H. J. Res. 38. Joint resolution repealing joint resolution to for carrying it into effect; and be it further
R esolved, That we ask each of our Senators and Members of Congress
provide for the distribution by Members of the Sixtieth Con
Oklahoma to cooperate in this restoration of our waterways, and
gress of documents, reports, and other publications, approved from
to do everything in his power to further the long-neglected work of
making our great river, the Arkansas, again navigable, from its ancient
March 2, 1909; and
.
H. J. Res. 45. Joint resolution making appropriations for the head of navigation at the mouth of Little River, thence down across
Kansas, through Oklahoma and Arkansas to the Mississippi
payment of certain expenses incident to the first session of the southern
and the Gulf, that the products of Oklahoma s farms, mines, and fac
tories may be given additional outlet every way in keeping with their
Sixty-first Congress.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
The VICE-PRESIDENT presented a memorial of the Inter
national Brotherhood of Paper Makers of Watertown, N. Y.,
remonstrating against a reduction of the duty on print paper
and wood pulp, which w as ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. FRYE presented the petition of A. H. Weymouth, of
East Millimockee, Me., praying for a reduction of the duty on raw
and refined sugars, which w as ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. OLIVER presented petitions of sundry citizens of Penn
sylvania, praying for a reduction of the duty on raw and refined
sugars, which were ordered to lie on the table.
He also presented memorials of sundry citizens of New Castle,
Pa., remonstrating against the retention of the proposed draw
back feature in the so-called “ Payne tariff bill ” relative to tin
plates, which were ordered to lie on the table.
He also presented a petition of Typographical Union No. 7,
American Federation of Labor, of Pittsburg, I’a., praying for a
reduction of the duty on print paper and wood pulp, which was
ordered to lie on the table.
He also presented petitions of sundry citizens of Bradford,
Pa., praying for the retention of the proposed duty on imported
knives or erasers, which were ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. CULLOM. I present a joint resolution of the legislature
of Illinois, which I ask may be read and referred to the Com
mittee on Finance.
There being no objection, the joint resolution w as read and
referred to the Committee on Finance, as follow s:
State of I llinois ,
D epartment of S tate.
To all to whom these presents shall come, greetin g:
I, James A. Rose, secretary of state of the State of Illinois do hereby
certify th at the following and hereto attached is a true copy of senate
joint resolution No. It!, of the forty-sixth general assembly of the State
of Illinois, filed April 21, 1909, the original of which is now on file
and a matter of record in this office.
In testimony whereof I hereto set my hand and cause to be affixed
the great seal of state.
Done at the city of Springfield this 21st day of April, A. D. 1909.
[ seal.]
J ames A. R ose .
Secretary of State.
Senate joint resolution 16.
Whereas the several States are now taxing inheritances w ith marked
success and need all the revenue that can properly be drawn from this
source; and
Whereas double taxation of inheritances would be unwise, and as the
Federal Government can readily raise additional revenue, when required,
from other sources : Therefore be it
R esolved by the senate (th e house of representatives concurring
therein), That it is the sense of the general assembly of the State of
Illinois that the taxation of inheritances should be reserved to the
several States as a source of revenue for their exclusive use and ben efit:
and be it further
Resolved, T hat the secretary of state send a certified copy of these
resolutions to the Members of the Congress of the United States from
Illinois.
Adopted by the senate March 11, 1909.
Concurred in by the house April 15, 1909.
Mr. CULLOM presented petitions of sundry citizens of Illi
nois, praying for a reduction of the duty on raw and refined
trs, which were ordered to lie on the table.
—Mr. OWEN. I present resolutions adopted by the Commer-1
cial Club of Tulsa, Okla.. relative to the improvement of inland
waterways. I ask that the resolutions be printed in the R ecord
for 11vc; information of the Senate, and that they he referred to
the Committee on Commerce.
There being no objection, the resolutions were referred to the
Committee on Commerce aud ordered to be printed In thej
R ecord a s follows:
growing importance in the commerce of the Nation
Adopted F» regular .eeal.u .Ms, February 19.
^
A ttest:
E rwin Cobry, Secretary.
Mr. OWEN. I present resolutions adopted by the board of
directors of the Commercial Club of Muskogee, Okla., which I
ask may be printed in the R ecord for the information of the
Senate and referred to the Committee on Commeice.
There being no objection, the resolutions were referred to the
Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed in the
R ecord, a s follow s:
Resolutions.
Whereas the National Waterways Commission has announced its
intention of making a personal inspection directly after the adjourn
ment of the present Congress of various water courses of the United
States with a view to recommending to the next Congress a policy
looking to the Improvement, for the purposes of navigation, of such
Streams so inspected as appear to said commission to warrant the exPeWhereasm theVT r ta tn’sasldRiver is a navigable stream as has been
d em onstrated by years of practical and profitable navigation of its
w afers b and by the reports of the Government’s engineers; and
Whereas navigation of the Arkansas River has fallen into disuse
through neglect of the ordinary means of providing for and protecting
tt Whereas bv proper effort the Arkansas River may be made an asset
of incalculable benefit to the State of Oklahoma and may be made the
neenev for solving in a large measure the question of traffic rates and
agency roi^ son iug
OIle 0f the most vexatious questions now confA n tin g * the people of this Commonwealth and may be made to pro
mote immeasurably the common welfare of the people of O klahom a;
anwhoreas the Muskogee Packet Company is the owner of the C ity of
u.V k oee a boat of 150 tons’ capacity, which is available to the
rommerclal Club
herein afterRiver;
proposed,
Commercial
Liuo for
ioi the use Arkansas
and which boat is now
wntpvwflvs Commission to inspect saia rivei, w
1Uciy De mcluded^n5 the general °scheme to be reported to the next session of ConSren e so h :td t^ 1the board of directors for and on behalf of the Com,u n cia l Club of Muskogee, That it is earnestly desired that the National
W a terw a y s Commission inspect the Arkansas Rivei fiom its mouth to
^ h f confidence of said river with the Verdigris and Grand rivers ; and
be»cao'ldederThat the Commercial Club offer to said commission the
n it a of Muskogee to convey them from the mouth of the Arkansas
R «-r to its confluence with the Verdigris and Grand rivers and hack
to the mouth of the Arkansas River without cost to said commission;
l « e s o Ired ,UThat the Oklahoma delegation in Congress be and they
hereby are, earnestly requested, for and on behalf of this club, to make
3 l d tender to the National Waterways Commission, and to request of
said commission that they inspect the A r k a n s a s ! as Proposed. and
f la t they do all In their power which they
secure
f2om said commission the acceptance of this Im itation, and be it
f'% ?csolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to each Senator and
Congressman from Oklahoma.
D. N. F ink , President.
A tte s t:
R. D. Sangster, Secretary.
Muskogee, Okla., A pril 9, 1909.
------—— ----
Mr. JONES presented petitions of sundry citizens of Spokane,
Wash., and of Owasso, Okla., praying for a reduction of the
duty on raw and refined sugars, which were ordered to lie on the
tabie.
H e also presented a petition of Igloo, No. 1, I loneers of
Alaska, of Nome, Alaska, praying for the enactment of legisla
tion to restrict the locations of mineral ground in that Terri
tory to individual locators, which w as referred to the Com
m ittee on Public Lands.
Mr. LODGE presented petitions of sundry citizens o f Boston,
T H E IM P R O V E M E N T O F IN LA N D W A TERW AYS.
Gloucester, Holyoke, South Hadley Falls, Chicopee Falls, South
/
Resolutions adopted by the Tulsa Commercial Club, Tulsa, Okla.
Essex, Springfield, Roxburv, and W illimansett, a ll in the State
/
Whereas the railroads of the M ississippi Valley, even under normal
f Massachusetts, and of Bristol, in the State of Connecticut,
/
conditions, are unable to handle the products of this wide region w ithout
miying for a reduction of the duty on raw and refined sugars'
f
delay and congestion; and
Whereas the immediate future gives promise of even greater pros ivhieh were ordered to lie on the table.
perity for the United States than has ever been known in the p a st; and
Mr. PILES presented a petition of the Chamber of Commerce
Whereas the completion of the Panama Canal w ill result in a vastly
f Spokane, Wash., praying for the repeal of the duty on works
, Increased tonnage for the already overloaded railway lines that parallel
y ' the M ississippi River and its tributaries, particularly the Arkansas ; and of art, which was ordered to lie on the table.
XL1V------94
1490
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Ifi' also presented a petition of tlie Chamber of Commerce of
Spokane, Wash., praying for the enactment of legislation to
establish tv line of steamships between the Isthmus of Panama
and the Pacific coast ports of the United States, which was re
ferred to the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. BRANDEGEK presented i>etitions of sundry citizens of
Wilisted, Northlleld, and Waterville, all in the State of Con
ned lent, praying for the retention of the proposed duty on im
ported knives or erasers, which were ordered to lie on the table.
He also presented a memorial of the New England Tobacco
Growers’ Association of Hartford, Conn., remonstrating against
the importation of tobacco free of duty from the Philippine
Islands, which was ordered to lie on the table.
lie also presented petitions of sundry citizens of New Haven,
Thompson, and N orw ich, all in the State of Connecticut, praying
for a reduction of the duty on raw and refined sugars, which
were ordered to lie on the table.
Mr ROOT presented petitions of sundry citizens of New York,
praying for a reduction of the duty on raw and refined sugars,
which w ere ordered to lie on the tabic.
lb' also presented a petition of Typographical Union No. 107,
American Federation of Labor, of Schenectady, N. Y., praying
for n reduction of the duty on print paper and wood pulp, which
was ordered to lie on the table.
Ill' also presented a petition of the State Council of the Inter
national Vttform Bureau of New York, praying for the passage
o
f
" Burkrtt-Foelter .JtlWjjWtag nu » bill.” which
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
'iVr also presented memorials of sundry citizens, of the hoard
of supervisors of Washington County, and of the International
Bro herh od of Papcr Makers of Watertown, all in the State of
New York, remonstrathifi against a reduction
the duty on
print, paper and wood pulp, which were ordered to lie on the
talTm „lao presented petitions of sundry citizens of New York,
praying for a protective duty on imported post cards, which
were ordered to lie on the tabic.
He also presented a m em orial of sundry members of the legis
lature of New York of Albany, N. Y remonstrating against a
reduction of the duty on gypsum, which was ordered to lie on
^ 'lie nlso presented the petition of John G. Bahret, of Pough
keepsie N ¥ and a petition of Chapel Corners Grange, No. 872,
Patrons of Husbandry, of Poughkeepsie, N Y. praying for the
n ,0 So-called “ rural parccls-post bill, which were
referred to the Committee on Post-ORices and Post-Roads. •
Mi- SIMMONS presented petitions of sundry citizens of
Movock Kenlv Rushy Fork, Bath, George, Red Springs, Rural
HaTl?Dlllardf’lJIlln^on, Pino Ilall, and Conover all in the
Stale of North Carolina, praying for a reduction of the duty on
raw and refined sugars, which were ordered to lie on the table.
Mr PILES presented a petition of Igloo No. 1, Pioneers of
Alaska of Nome, Alaska, praying for the enactment of legisla
tion lo restrict the locations of mineral ground in that Territory
to individual locators, which was referred to the Committee on
Mines and Mining.
DILLS INTRODUCED.
Rills and a joint resolution were read the first time and, by
unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:
Ry Mr. FRYE:
A hill (S. 1904) granting an increase of pension to Elbridge
P Wardwoll; to the Committee on Pensions.
I!y Mr. RICHARDSON:
A.
bill (S 1005) to provide for the erection of a monument
mark the location of the Do Vries Dutch settlement near Lewes,
Del • to the Committee on the Library.
Bv Mr. OLIVER:
A* bill (S 1900) to amend section 4919 of the Revised Stat
utes of the'United States, to provide additional protection for
owners of patents of the United States, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Patents.
1\
/ I iy Mr. OWEN:
\
/ A hill (s. 1907) to provide against the reversal of Judgment*
/ in civil and criminal cases upon technicalities immaterial to the!
f ends of substantial justice; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
I
A bill (s. 1968) to promote the efficiency of the Public Health
I and Marine-Hospital Service; to the Committee on Public
I Health and National Quarantine.
,
\
A bill (S. 1969) granting a pension to M. L. Williams; to the
\ Committee on Pensions.
\ A 1,111
4970) for the relief of Sabini Jones;
v A 1,111
11,71) for the relief of Manuel Madril;
A p r il 23,
A bill (S. 1972) for the relief of Mrs. Candelaria i r a r hes
'point, administratrix of the estate of Don Rlas L u c e r o , dcceased;
*
A bill (S. 1979) for the relief of Pablo Ciriaco Baca;
A hill (S. 1974) for the relief of the estate of Matias Baca*
deceased, and his son, Juan Rey Baca, of Belen, N. Mex.;
A hill (S. 1975) for the relief of Joseph R. Tucker;
A hill (S. 1976) for the relief of the estate of Gua'dalup
Lujan do Fuentes, deceased; and
A bill (s. 1977) for the relief of the estate of Fritz Eggcn,
deceased; to the Committee on Claims.
A hill (S. 1978) providing for the enrollment of certain pU"
sons as members of the Osage tribe of Indians;
, a w
A hill (S. 1979) to authorize the Delaware tribe of Indians 1
residing in Oklahoma to bring suit in the Court of Claims i
against the United States, and for other purposes;
A hill (S. 1DS0) to amend section 1 of an act approved Jam
uary 30, 1897, entitled “An act to prohibit the sale of intoxicM'
ing drinks to Indians, providing penalties therefor, and for othc
purposes; ”
A hill (S. 1981) to amend section 1 of an act approved Jan- !
uary 30, 1897, entitled “An act to prohibit the sale of intoxicat
ing drinks to Indians, providing penalties therefor, and i°r j
other purposes ” (with the accompanying paper); and
t1
A hill (S. 1982) to authorize the Kaw tribe of Indians resid- ,
Ing in the State of Oklahoma to bring suit in the Court (|i !
Claims, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Iudkm. ,
^Affairs.
.■*4**^.
By Mr. WARREN:
A hill (S. 1983) to grant certain lands to the city of Chey
enne, Wyo.; to the Committee on Public Lands.
By Mr. DICK:
A bill (S. 1984) to regulate the retirement of certain veterans
of the civil war; to the Committee on Military Affairs
By Mr. DIXO N:
I
A bill (S. 1985) for the relief of Henry Kirn (with the ac
companying papers); to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. OWEN:
A joint resolution (S. J. Res. 24) empowering the Court of ,
Claims to ascertain the amount of the “ civilization fun d” Pal(1 1
by the Osages and applied to the benefit of other Indians, and 1
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF BILL.
Mr. GUGGENHEIM submitted five amendments intended
to be proposed by him to the bill (II. R. 143S) to provide rev
enue, equalize duties, and encourage the industries of
United States, and for other purposes, which wore ordered 4°
lie on the table and be printed.
Mr. ROOT submitted an amendment intended to bo proposed
by him to the bill (II. It. 1438) to provide revenue, equally
duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, a»d
for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and
be printed.
Mr. McCUMBER submitted an amendment intended to ‘&e
proposed by him to the hill (II. R. 1438) to provide revenue,
equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the Unfie(1
States, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the
table and be printed.
TARIFF STATISTICS.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE submitted the following resolution (®‘
Res. 36), which was considered by unanimous consent an(
agreed t o :
Senate resolution 30.
to Resolved, That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor he, and h®
Hereby is, directed to cause to bo compiled for the information and 'W
of the Senate a comparative tnblo of tariff duties levied in the
States, Germany, and France on pottery, glass bottles, plate glass, h'f!
ore, pig iron, steel rails, structural iron, cutlery, machinery, tin pUr'
watch movements, raw and refined sugar, wheat, corn, flour, nick®5’
lard, wool, woolen yarn, woolen cloth, knitted articles of wool, cotto”
yarn, cotton thread, cotton cloth, knitted articles of cotton, ready-®8®0
clothing, corsets, plush, hosiery, print paper, writing paper, hid®3;
leather, leather gloves, shoos, paints and colors, and where more th®1'
one rate of duty Is provided for different kinds or grades of the sa1®®
article the highest and lowest rates be given. That the rates may
made strictly comparable, they shall ho reduced, in so far as possible, t0
an nd valorem basis.
STENOGRAPHER FOR CENSUS COMMITTEE,
Mr. LA FOLLETTE submitted the following resolution
(S. Res. 37), which was referred to the Committee to Audit and
Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate:
Senate resolution 37.
.
,.......
.... „v ...........
^ ..........the
Resolved, That
Committee
on the ^Census be, ....................__
and the same 19
hereby, authorized to employ a stenographer, to be paid from the c®j®
tingent fund of the Senate, at the rate of $1,200 per annum until otnc
wise provided for by law.
f
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
11567
Mr. WETMORE presented a petition of the Medical Society of
Newport, R. I., praying for the enactment of legislation to create
a national department of public health, which was referred to
the Committee on Public Health and National Quarantine.
lie also presented a petition of the Rhode Island Horticultural
Society, praying for the enactment of legislation to establish a
quarantine against the importation and interstate traffic in in
fected honey and bees, which was referred to the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry.
Mr. BRANDEGEE presented a petition of sundry employees
House joint memorial 3, relating to homestead laws.
Memorial to the Senate and nou se of Representatives of the United of the Humason & Beckley Manufacturing Company, of New
Britain, Conn., praying for the retention of the proposed duty on
States.
Re it resolved by the house of representatives of the legislature of imported knives or erasers, which was ordered to lie on the
‘’ homing ( the senate concurring):
table.
Whereas it has been demonstrated that the homestead act providing
Mr. PAGE presented a petition of sundry citizens of Plymouth,
lor the entry and settlem ent of 100 acres of public land by a qualitie*!
man does not cover the needs and reach all the conditions in the Yt., and a petition of sundry citizens of Waterville, Yt., praying
an a and semiarid sections of the West, owing to soil and clim atic cir- for a reduction of the duty on raw and refined sugars, which
cumstances not considered when the homestead law was passed:
hereas in the higher altitudes of the Rocky Mountain West the were ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. FLINT presented a memorial of sundry citizens of Los
einit +Fe rarel.v exceeds 12 inches, the seasons are short and the pre'-mitation variable in quantity and uncertain during the growing season ; Alamitos, Cal., remonstrating against a reduction of the duty on
'' hereas these facts render it necessary to conserve according to the sugar, which was ordered to lie on the table.
most scientific methods all the moisture that fa lls in winter, spring, and
He also presented petitions of sundry citizens of Pasadena,
ronlmer’ thus requiring that at least one-half of the tillable area lie
San Francisco, Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Diego, all in
1u \viW
eacl1 a ,ternate season; and
“ hereas the farmer who undertakes to establish a home and make a the State of California, praying for a reduction of tlie duty on
n h t " , r himself and family in a region in which the greatest natural
obstacles must be overcome, can not w ith safety depend alone on his raw and refined sugar’s, which were ordered to lie on the table.
Air. DEPEW presented petitions of sundry employees of the
tropg, but must have some grazing land : Now, therefore, be it
, W M lc ei, That the house and senate of the Wyoming legislature, by Case Brothers Cutlery Company, of Little A alley; of the New
bni i n®Inorlah do hereby indorse and approve the 320-acre homestead York Knife Company,-of Walden; of the Carrier Cutlery Com
tbo tt
°,n' P rank W. Mondell, and urge the honorable Congress of
pany, of Elmira; and of the Cattaraugus Cutlery Company, of
me united States to enact the same into law at its present session.
■, That a copy of this memorial be sent to each Member of Little Valley, all in the State o f New York, praying for the
me Senate and House o f Representatives at W ashington, D. C.
retention of the proposed duty on imported knives or erasers,
Approved February 17, 1909.
which were ordered to lie on the table.
T he S tate of W tomixg ,
He also presented a petition of sundry citizens of New Aork,
TT
Office of the S ecretary of State.
praying for an increase of the duty on lithographic products,
United S tates of A merica, S ta te of Wyoming, ss:
which was ordered to lie on the table.
.
„Sch,nitger, secretary of state of the State of Wyoming, do
He also presented a memorial of Local Union No. 106, Cigar
orirtnoiCt S 2f?i
tlle annexed has been carefully compared with the Makers’ Internntional Union, of Ogdensbiug, IN. Y., remonstra*
correct1
houseaud
3Slnt.
3, and is a full, true, and
correct n£££.0ll5d
copy of same,
of memorial
the whole No.
thereof.
ting against the repeal of the duty on imported cigars, which
.
great s^ a l^ f^ h e T sta te ^ o / W yomingCUnt° Set
hand and affi« 'd thc was ordered to lie on the table.
He also presented petitions of sundry citizens of Batavia,
Clleyenne> the caPHal, this 18th day of February, A. D. 1909.
W
est
AVinfield*
and
Bridgewater,
ail
in
the
State
of
New
York,
W k . E. Schnitgeh ,
,,
T. T^,T,
.
Secretary o f State.
praying for a reduction of the duty on raw and refined sugars,
Mr. DICK presented a joint resolution of the legislature of which were ordered to lie on the table.
l ie also presented a petition of sundry importers, manufac
Hon of"tf],s'K^t!‘n^ ‘lSB eferral t0 1116 Commlttee on Hie ConserraS K , a Snow s '
and ora™ a *° *> printed In the turers, and dealers in military supplies and equipment, of New
York City, N. Y., praying for a reduction of the duty on m ili
tary supplies and equipment, which was ordeied to lie on the
House joint resolution 4, relating to creating forest reserves.
t
v
h]> tlle, Jwuse of representatives (th e senate concurrina' ■ table.
He' also presented a memorial of Local Union No. SO, Cigar
p r ^ e n T p r t i ^ y ^ F ^ i V a H ^ . S£ te of Wyoming. a r f
nf 1l.o qL i-a ^
VIP National Government in w it lid rawin g large areas Makers’ International Union, of Schenectady, N. Y., remonstra
ing to l l
of, laws enacted by Congress thus addproperty * and
6 £ m aintaminS la w and order and protecting life and ting against the repeal of the duty on cigais imported from the
Philippine Islands, which was ordered to lie on the table.
Ho also presented petitions of sundry shoe and harness deal
ers of I’iqua, Ohio, praying for the repeal of the duty on hides,
which were ordered to lie on the table.
H e also presented a memorial of sundry importers and job
bers of tea of Boston, Mass., remonstrating against the imposi
tion of a duty on tea, which was ordered to lie on the table.
He also presented a joint memorial of the legislature of Wyo
ming, which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands
and ordered to be printed in the R ecord, as fo llo w s:
State ea r e L l wbieheaE»ni oi0 f Inrge foLcst reserves has taken from the
ALCOHOL AND OTHER NARCOTICS.
timher wLL.u ^ '1 contain many other natural resources aside from
bernmo Yi h must b,c Properly utilized if the State is to develop and
Air. GALLINGER. I present certain papers read at the semi
b Whereas nH?eA°US!Comm<M
UYUaIth amonS tliose of file Union : and
pccp!e arc living under a code of rules and regulations annual meeting of the American Society for the Study of Alcohol
F \V w o l l hi: Io rest Service rather than under acts of C ongress; and
s u r t S o 8 development is greatly retarded because those responsible for and Other Narcotics, held in the city of Washington March I t,
such lules and regulations are unacquainted with conditions: and
IS, and 19, 1909. I move that the papers be referred to the
"bereas Die Purest Service and other bureaus at W ashington mainnaBf°V+v,nment exPens.e advertising agencies which mislead thc Committee on Printing.
people as to the purpose and work of such bureaus; and
The motion was agreed to.
Whereas the people of the State of Wyoming are fuiiv aware that the
HILLS INTRODUCED.
best and highest use of natural resources is not being made under the
supervision of these bureaus and that great waste now occurs which
B ills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous
might easily bo prevented by a more localized control: Therefore lie il
Resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the S ta te ol consent, the second time, and referred as follow s.
W yoming in legislature assembled, T hat Congress be and it is hereby
By Mr. PENROSE:
^
,
petitioned to enact such laws as may be necessary for the control ol
A bill (S. 2015) to reimburse A. J. Caufman, Girard, Erie
natural resources, and to provide an administration of these laws p,
order that direct acts of Congress may operate rather than rules'and County, Pa., in the sum of $300, together w ith interest thereon
regulations prepared and enforced by an absent landlord: and be it
. from October 1G, 1SG2, for soldier furnished United States, being
lurther
ltesolved, That Congress be petitioned to take such steps as will place the amount paid by him to one Charles Morton as a substitute;
the control and management of natural resources in the hands of thc and
people of States as rapidly as those States prepare for the responsibilitv
A bill (S. 2016) for the relief of the heirs of Michael Haak,
nnd Bo it further
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each Member ol !deceased; to the Committee on Claims.
Congress and to the chief adm inistrative officers of the Interior anc
A bill (S. 2017) to grant an honorable discharge to George
Agricultural departments.
I AW H opkins; to the Committee on Military Affairs.
Approved February 17, 1909.
T he State of Wyoming.
Office of tiie S ecretary of S tate.
U nited S tates of A merica, State of Wyoming, ss:
I, William R. Schnitgor, secretary of state of the State of Wyoming,
do hereby certify Hint the annexed has been carefully compared with
the original enrolled house joint resolution No. 4, of the tenth state leg
islature of Wyoming, and is a full, true, and correct copy o f same, and
of the whole thereof.
Iu testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and afflsed the
great seal of the State of Wyoming.
Hone at Cheyenne, the capital, this 18th day of February, A. D. 1909.
[SEAL.]
WM. R. SCHJfITGER.
Secretary of State.
A bill (S. 2018) granting an increase of pension to William
! O’B rien ;
A Dill (S. 2019) granting an increase of pension to Theodore
i G. Stoner;
A bill (S. 2020) granting an increase of pension to Henry
| W ren;
A bill (S. 2021) granting an increase of pension to John M.
IR hoads;
A bill (S. 2022) granting an increase of pension to Elizabeth
;S. Iteess;
A bill (S. 2023) granting a pension to Louisa W. Benade;
1568
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
A bill (S. 2024) granting a pension to Eliza A. Miller Brad-
A pril 28,
Mr. President, the history of the income-tax proposition in the
United States, both as written by the economists of the country
,<yA bill (S. 2025) granting an Increase of pension to Frank E. and as written and discussed by the framers of the Constitution
and as interpreted by the courts of the country, lias been given
Bickford;
A bill (S. 2020) granting an increase of pension to Gertrude to the Senate during this discussion in the last two days. It
occurs to me that my distinguished friend from Texas [Mr.
Smith; and
A bill (S. 2027) granting a pension to John L. Fenwell; to B a i l e y ] undertook to keep faith with the Senators when he told
us
that he intended to demonstrate that under the Constitution
the Committee on Pensions.
as it stands to-day an Income-tax law ought to he sustained. R[
By Mr. CURTIS:
A bill (S. 2028) to create In the War and Navy departments, other words, he undertook to demonstrate that the decision of
respectively, a roll to be known as the “ civil-war officers an the courts of the country as last pronounced was wrong. 1 want
nuity honor roll,” and for other purposes; to the Committee on to suggest to the Senate this afternoon just briefly that if we
take everything as true as stated by tlie Senator from Texas,
HTltary Affairs.
and if we accept liis conclusion as absolutely right, that the de
A bill (S. 2020) for the relief of the Absentee Shawnee Indi-' cision of the court In the Pollock case was wrong, I ask y<)ll>
nns In the State of Oklahoma, and for other purposes; to the Senators, of what avail that would be to the country or with
what satisfaction could it be received? Suppose it be true that
.Committee on Indian Affairs.
V By Mr. BURROWS:
„
.
. T , -rT we are convinced as Senators that the decision of the court was
A bill (S. 2030) granting an increase of pension to Lewis B. a mistake, does it help us? Does it help to place the burdens
Moon (with the accompanying paper); to the Committee on of taxation upon those who are earning the large incomes of
the country?
Pensions.
By Mr. CULBERSON (by request) :
Mr. President, we may have the satisfaction this hour of
A bill (S. 2031) for the relief of the heirs of Iranclsco Guil- knowing that the opinion of tlio court, in our own minds, was
not
only not sustained by the law for a century, but was con
beau, deceased (with the accompanying paper) , to the Commit
trary to the law for a century. However, I call the attention
tee on Claims.
of Senators to the fact that though we may be satisfied as to
A^bilWS 2032) to amend an act entitled “An act granting to what the law is we are not on the bench of this country. We do
certain employees of the United States the right to receive from not have the right to enter a judgment. We have no power to
it co n e Z tio n for injuries sustained in the course of their pronounce a decree. We have no power to write our opinions
employment,” approved May 30, 1008; to the Committee on Ed in the court records of the country, which may become a basis
for any execution to enforce them.
ucation and Labor.
But let us go a step further. Suppose we are not only con
A ltlll ( S 20331 for the exchange of certain lands situated in vinced that the court made a mistake on its last decision, but
the Fort D A Russell Military Reservation, In the State of we are so fully convinced of that fact that we undertake and
Wyoming for lands adjacent thereto, between the city of Chey- succeed here at this extraordinary session of Congress to amend
this proposed law by attaching an income-tax amendment,
< 2 a munfcipalTty^
the State of Wyoming, in the State of Wyoming, and the Gov wlmt have we accomplished? We have carried out our judg
em inent of the United States; to the Committee on Military ment and written into the statute our judgment, but when the
law is passed and reaches the White House and is signed by the
President, it yet must come to the door of that court which very
* A Joint resolution (S. J. B. 28) to
Wyoming a winter game reserve (with the accompanying pa recently vetoed legislation of that character. Let it be remem
l,e?); to the Committee on Forest Reservations and the Pro bered, Senators, that when a veto comes from the White House
we have the power, constitutionally, if we have tlie votes, to
tection of Game.
override it, but when a veto comes from the court, that veto
AMENDMENT TO THE TARIFF HILL.
overrides us—it is final.
Mr. PAYNTEIt submitted an
enled"
We then have given again to the court an opportunity to ad
postal by him to the bill (H. R. 3438) to Provide
- here to its last opinion, declaring us without power to pass such
Ize duties, and encourage the industries of Jhe lln ed States a law or to declare the reverse. I want to inquire If there is a
and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table Senator in this Chamber who is willing to stand up and tell us
and be printed.
that lie has any reason to suppose that the court lias changed
INCOMES AND INHERITANCES.
its mind on the law of this question. I have always been taught
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The morning business is concluded. the good old doctrine that when the courts have spoken it is the
law of the land. 1 have always believed in that precept which
Mr. ALDRICH. I ask that House bill 14.18 be laid before the the fathers had in their hearts when they wrote the Constitu
tion, that the legislative branch of Government was vested with
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without objection, the bill will he the power to write laws, and that another branch of Govern
laid before the Senate.
.. ,,
1kT„....... . „ ment, the courts of the country, were vested with the power to
interpret them and the Constitution upon which they were based.
But suppose, Mr. President, that not only we pass the law
and it is signed by tlie President, but it reaches the court of
IvlilA he iutreiluced ycstonlay l»ld
J S fJ ^ n t
of the morning business, and I am quite willing that that shall last resort and we get an opinion tlie reverse of the last one.
The law is sustained. Those of us who believe in the principle
The'1VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the joint of levying taxes on incomes are satisfied, are we? The country
that to-day believes in tlie principle of taxing incomes win
" T h fsSi'retary read the joint resolution introduced yesterday be satisfied, will, it? Yes, Mr. President and Senators, it will
for the time being; but tell me how long will that decision
by Mr. B rown , ns follows:
, , resolution
,
/a r r; 25) to lnhRrltanc0S.
amend the Constitution relative to stand? Our courts have demonstrated a faculty to change
A/ ,joint
<b.
their opinions on this question, for they have decided it at differ
ent times different ways, and while we might hope and believe
that that decision would be permanent, no man can justify a
conclusion with any certainty that it would be permanent.
It is for that reason, Senators, that I present to you to-day
CO‘‘TtheltCong°rLyishan lmY?P<w« to lay and collect tuxes on incomes the imperative and commanding necessity for an amendment to
the
Constitution which will give the court a Constitution that
and Inheritances.”
. , ,.
......
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have no intention at this time can not be interpreted two ways. I undertake to say that the
to detain the Senate with a discussion on the ipotKs of the sev people of the United States have a right to have an opportunity
eral Income-tax amendments pending before this body. It is to amend the Constitution and to make it so definite and so
sufficient for the purpose that I have in mind this moining to certain that no question can ever lie raised again of the power
say on that subject that I am in full accord with the proposi of Congress to legislate on tlie subject.
Mr. ItAYNER. Mr. President----tion of laying some of the burdens of taxation upon the incomes
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does t lie Senator from Nebraska
of the country; but I rise this morning for the purpose of
challenging the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Con yield to tlie Senator from Maryland?
Mr. BROWN. Certainly.
stitution of our country stands to-day in need of an amendment
Mr. RAYNER. In looking at tlie joint resolution I see that
upon Ibis subject if we are to have an income-tax law at all
it reads “ The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes
about Lire validity of which there can be no question.
LTon'M"r ss sass
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE. .
A bill (S. 2054) to provide for the purchase of a site for a
Public building at Big Rapids, M ich.; and
A bill (S. 2055) to provide for the purchase of a site for a
Public building at Charlotte, M ich.; to the Committee on Public
Buildings and Grounds.
A bill (S. 2056) naturalizing Charles W. H illiker;
A bill (S. 2057) naturalizing George Drought; and
A bill (S. 2058) naturalizing Charles W alkley LaDu; to the
Committee on Immigration.
A bill (S. 2059) for the relief of Sophie M. Guard;
A bill (S. 2060) for the relief of I. Winslow Ayer;
A bill ( S. 2061) for the relief of Orlando B. W illcox and cer
tain other army officers and their heirs or legal representatives;
A bill (S. 2062) for the relief o f Clarence A. Rendt; and
A bill (S. 2063) for the relief of John W. M cCrath; to the
Committee on Claims.
A bill (S. 2064) to quiet title to certain land in Dona Ana
County, N. M ex.; and
. A bill ( s . 2065) to authorize the sale of dead. down, and in
jured timber in Alpena and Roscommon counties, Mich.; to
the Committee on Public Lands.
A bill (S. 2066) for the establishment of a light-house and
signal at the easterly end of Michigan Island, Apostle Group,
westerly end of Lake Superior, W isconsin;
A bill (S. 2067) to make Holland, in the State of Michigan, a
subport of entry, and for other purposes; and
A bill (g. 2068) to make Petoskey, in the State of Michigan.
a subport of entry, and for other purposes; to the Committee
°u Commerce.
. A bill (S. 2069) to correct the military record of Capt. DanJd II. Powers (w ith the accompanying papers) ;
A bill (S. 2070) authorizing and directing the Secretary of
War to enter on the roll of the Third Regiment Michigan Vol
unteer Cavalry the name of William J. Shirley;
A bill (S. 2071) to remove the charge of desertion from the
military record of W illiam T. Lang;
A bill (S. 2072) to remove the charge of desertion from the
military record of John Reed;
A bill (S. 2073) granting an honorable discharge to Benjamin
W. Ehle;
A bill (S. 2074) to remove the charge of desertion from the
military record of David IIoulc;
A bill (S. 2075) to remove the charge of desertion from the
military record of Joseph Neveau;
A bill (S. 2076) granting an honorable discharge to Glenn
B ennett;
A bill (S. 2077) granting an honorable discharge to Adam D.
Shriner;
A bill (S. 2078) granting an honorable discharge to Henry S.
Hunter;
1587i
A bill (S. 2099) granting a pension to Alvena W iggins;
A bill (S. 2100) granting a pension to Emma L. Parker;
A bill (S. 2101) granting an increase of pension to Sidney
M. Smith;
A bill (S. 2102) granting an increase of pension to Martin
S elak ;
A bill (S. 2103) granting an increase of pension to Benjamin
M orse;
A bill (S. 2104) granting a pension to Agnes H unt (w ith the
accompanying paper) ;
. T . _ ...
A bill (S. 2105) granting an increase of pension to Lewis Philbrick ;
A bill (S. 2106) granting an increase of pension to Charles
Moulton;
.
.
A bill (S. 2107) granting an increase of pension to George
Alexander *
A bill (S. 2108) granting an increase of pension to Benjamin
S. W hitman;
J _ .. .
.
A bill (S. 2109) granting a pension to Lydia A. Brigham;
A bill (S. 2110) granting an increase of pension to Charles
A bill ( S. 2111) granting an increase of pension to E lias R ieg ie;
A bill (S. 2112) granting a pension to William Hordes;
A bill (S. 2113) granting an increase of pension to M arshall
11AB bill1 *(S.’ 2114) granting an increase of pension to Alice
A bill (S. 2115) granting an increase of pension to Jane A.
1".V^Hil 1 (S. 2116) granting an increase of pension to Charles
a Morris *
A bill (S. 2117) granting an increase of pension to John M.
A bill (S. 211S) granting an increase of pension to George M.
A bill
\ bill
\ bill
A bill
\ bill
\ hi!?
V bill
A bill
(S. 2119) granting a pension to Margaret A. B arker;
(8 2120) granting a pension to George V\. D eib y,
(8 ‘WT) granting a pension to Elizabeth F. Houghton;
(Si a a i granting a pension to Mary Caroline D ouglas;
(S. 2123) granting a pension to Emma R. W alters,
r s 2124) granting a pension to Louisa E. Lawrence;
( I . 2125) ^granting a'pension to Sarah Elsie Green ;
(8. 2126) granting an increase of pension to Caroline
A bill (S. 2127) granting a pension to Lucinda W. Van H yning;
\ bill ( S. 2128) granting ao increase of pension to Renselarr
B A bnT°(8.;2129) granting an increase of pension to Gardner B.
^ A b i n (8. 2130) granting an increase of pension to George A.
A bill ( s . 2079) to correct the m ilitary record of Clark G.
A bill (8. 2131) granting a pension to Elizabeth A. Stebbins;
R u ssell;
A bill (8. 2132) granting an increase of pension to Frank D.
A bill (g. 2080) to regarrison Fort Mackinac and maintain
the same as a military post;
^A bill (8. 2133) granting an iucrease of pension to Benjamin
A bill (S. 2081) to remove the charge of desertion from the
military record of John Esseltine;
J A^bilf (8 . 2134) granting an increase of pension to Lyman G.
A bill (g. 2082) to remove the charge of desertion from the
W illcox;
.
„
military record of Earl Hoisington, jr .;
A bill (S. 2135) granting a pension to Mary E. Smith;
A bill (S. 2083) to remove the charge of desertion from the
A bill (S. 2136) granting a pension to Annie B. Jackson;
military record of Henry Fuller;
A bill (S. 2137) granting an increase of pension to Mary E.
A bill (S. 2084) to remove the charge of desertion from the
Gaylord;
.
^
military record of Andrew M artin; and
A bill (8 . 2138) granting a pension to Hiram 8. M im s,
A bill (S. 2085) to remove the charge of desertion from the
A
bill
(S.
2139)
granting
a
pension
to
Emma
J. I rifle,
military record of James Malloy; to the Committee on Military
A bill (8. 2140) granting a pension to Anna E. Warden;
Affairs.
A bill (8. 2141) granting a pension to Cynthia A. Slayton;
A bill (S. 2086) granting an increase of pension to Peter
A bill (S. 2142) granting an increase of pension to David
B oyer;
.
. ,
,
A bill (S. 2087) granting an increase of pension to Francis G. Collins;
A bill (S. 2143) granting an increase of pension to Joseph
B ourasaw ;
B
arton;
,
„
.
A bill (S. 2088) granting a pension to Almira J. Sterling;
A bill (S. 2089) granting an increase of pension to Josiah M. { A bill (S. 2144) granting an increase of pension to Eunice C.
W ickware;
„
R ic e ; ,
A bill (8. 2145) granting an increase of pension to Charles W.
A bill (S. 2090) granting an increase of pension to John A. j
M orrow;
B attentield;
A bill (S. 2146) granting an increase of pension to George W.
A bill (S. 2091) granting a pension to Rachel F. Prince;
A bill (g. 2092) granting an increase of pension to Silas Mul liken;
A bill (S. 2147) granting an increase of pension to Benjamin
W right;
Stroup;
A bill (S. 2098) granting a pension to George Seward;
A Hill (8. 2148) granting a pension to Archie H. W right;
A bill (S. 2094) granting an increase of pension to Martha F.
A bill (S. 2149) granting an increase of pension to W illiam S.
Turner;
A bill (S. 2095) granting an increase of pension to Isaac R. D a iley ;
A bill (S. 2150) granting an increase of pension to Artemus
Jam eson;
W ard;
A bill (S. 2096) granting a pension to W. H. Rugg;
A bill (S. 2151) granting a pension to Eliza Bracelin*
A bill (S. 2097) granting a pension to Allen B. Be D ell;
A bill (S. 2152) granting an increase of pension to Jacob R
A Dili (S. 209S) granting an increase of pension to Albert L.
Riblet;
u
T. B u sh ;
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
1588
A pril 29 ,
A bill (S. 2153) granting an increase of pension to Geraldine
By Mr. SMITH of Michigan:
nn
A joiiit resolution (S. J. R. 27) granting condemned canno
Tift;
A hill (S. 2154) granting an increase of pension to Henry 0. for a statue to Gen. George A. Custer, of Michigan ;
«
A joint resolution (S. J. R. 28) granting to the State °
B A^blll (S. 2155) granting an increase of pension to James Michigan permission to use for its own purposes unused P
tions of condemned cannon granted to that State by joint re
Malloy;
lutlon of June 23, 1906; to the Committee on Military AffairsA bill (S. 2150) granting a pension to Sarah J. Hitzgibbon;
A joint resolution (S. J. R. 29) appropriating $275,000 I
A iilll (S.2157) granting a pension to Sarah J. Fix;
immediate and necessary work on the harbor of refuge, Haro
A bill (H.2158) granting a pension to Jennie Dunn;
Beach, Mich.;
A hill (S.2150) granting a pension to Verona H. Coon ;
A joint resolution (S. J. R. 30) providing for an examination
A bill (S.2100) granting a pension to Lucy Ann Palmer;
A bill (S. 2101) granting a pension to Frankie Esselstyn;
and survey of White Lake Harbor, Michigan; and
.
f
A joint resolution (S. J. R. 31) directing an examination m
A hill (S. 2102) granting an increase of pension to George M.
Pigeon
River,
at
Port
Sheldon,
Mich.;
to
the
Committee
on
Horton;
Commerce.
A bill (S.2103) granting a pension to John 0. Hurst;
AMENDMENTS TO THE TARIFF BILL.
A bill (S.2104) granting a pension to Helen Mirrln;
A bill (S. 2105) granting an increase of peusion to Irancis M.
Mr. OLIVER submitted an amendment intended to be I)7°"
posed by him to the bill (H. R. 1438) to provide revenue. eq«m'
Forman;
„
, _.
, „
A bill (S. 2100) granting a pension to Samuel Limenstall;
ize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States,
A 1)111 (S. 2107) granting a pension to Leonard C. Wiswo 1;
and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the tan
A bill (S.2108) granting an increase of pension to Charles S. and be printed.
Mr. GALLINGER submitted an amendment intended to e
A bill (S.2109) granting an Increase of pension to Robert R. proposed by him to the bill (II. R. 1438) to provide revenue,
equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the Unit
Marsh *
States, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on t
a uni ( m
emnting a. pension to Emelinc C. S egei,
A bill (s'.*2171)^grunting an increase of pension to Wharton table and be printed.
Mr. GAMBLE submitted an amendment intended to be P1’®'
^ ’A ^ .m 'ls. 2172) granting an increase of pension to Benjamin posed by him to the bill (H. R. 1438) to provide revenue, equui'
ize duties, and encourage the industries of the United States,
and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the tabi°
and be printed.
2i?4)
Mr. BURTON submitted three amendments intended to l,e
proposed by him to the bill (II. It. 1438) to provide revenue*
equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the Unite®
" T,!of
introduced * the States, and for other purposes, which were ordered to lie °°
the table and be printed.
Senator from Michigan [Mr. S mith ].
^
t
Mr. GUGGENHEIM submitted an amendment intended to l>e
vr,, AiviniTMitFR Then I should like to ask the heuat 1
proposed by him to the bill (H. It. 1438) to provide revenueequalize duties, and encourage the industries of the Unite®
on Pensions, the number oi suiyiy ®
... ,b Tllirnhlll. nf States, and for other purposes, which was ordered to He °°
Michigan, and how that number compares with the numbt
the table and be printed.
hills lie has just introduced.
, ,
S '
CARE OF DEPENDENT CHILDREN.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. 1 i'ef1' b rv-md Armv^of llie
Mr. OWEN. I submit a resolution, and ask for its presen
tlngulslied Senator to the records of the Grand-Army >f the
Republic iu the State of M ichigan, and he will hud ins question ^consideration.
The resolution (S. Res. 39) was read, as follows:
Senate resolution 39.
anMrCrMcCUMBBR It is evidently true that the Senator
Resolved, That there he printed (1.000 copies of Report of the
knows what ^ r e c o r d s are and the number. I do not myself|
\t
ssss
-aiffa
knZ ' s 'm it 111of°Michigau.1'*T know that these bills represent
a very small proportion of the gallantry the State of Michigan
furnished.
Mr. CULBERSON. I should like to know how many of these
pension bills have just been introduced by the Senator from
Michigan, in view of the inquiry of the Senator from North
Dakota.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair lias not counted them.
The Secretary will count them, if the Senator desires. There
are quite a number.
Mr. MoCUMHER. I understand that the Senator from Mich
igan has not had time to count them.
Mr. CLAPP. I should like the attention of the Senate for a
moment in this connection. The Senate passed a rule two or
three years ago providing that pension bills, private claims
bills, and other bills of that kind, may be tiled with the clerks
ami recorded as introduced. The fact is, that either the rule
has been forgotten or, in the case of those who may have come
in since the rule was adopted, it has not been called to their
attention because every morning we go through the same ceremoney of the introduction of bills and gain nothing by it, when
most of them might be tiled with the clerks, put in the R ecord,
and credited to the Senator tiling them.
By Mr. TALIAFERRO:
A bill (S. 2175) granting a pension to Mollio Brantley (with
the accompanying papers) ;
A bill (S. 217(5) granting an increase of pension to Peter F.
Pellicer (with an accompanying paper) ;
A bill (s, 2177) granting an increase of pension to Cassinovo
Masters (with an accompanying paper); and
A bill (S. 2178) granting an increase of pension to Peter C.
Masters (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on
Pensions.
By Mr TILLMAN:
-kj A,,1>V <.S'
to authorize and empower J. L. Hankinson,
\
,’1 a
associates, successors, and assigns, to constmet a dam; to the Committee on Commerce.
ference on the Caro of Dependent Children (S. Doc. 721, (10th Congseas.), of which 1,000 copies shall be for (lie use of the Senate***
5,000 copies shall be for the use of the conference.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Oklahoma »sU3
for the present consideration of the resolution.
. i
Mr. GALLINGER. I ask the Senator if ho has ascertain
the cost of the printing?
r
Mr. OWEN. I was just going to state that I have asce
tained the cost, and it is within the limit of $500.
, n
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, notwithstanding tbftt*
seems to me that the resolution ought to go to the Committee
Printing. I move that it be referred to the Committee
Printing.
The motion was agreed to.
SUGAR IMPORTATIONS.
Mr. BRISTOW submitted the following resolution (S<
40); which was considered by unanimous consent and agreed
Senate resolution 40.
by,
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hei
dveected to inform the Senate—
auf'
First. The amount of raw sugar imported Into tho United sta ,n tb8
ing the fiscal year ending June 30, 1908, by each sugar refinery
United
u iL u u States.
o it u e s .
____„
i. yg,v»rft\V
Second. Tho countries from which these refineries imported sue" at
igar, the amount Imported from each country, and the Pf ^ tb8
American port of the sugar imported from each country duu“»
fiscal year ending June 30, 1908.
THE TARIFF,
—
Mr. ALDRICH. I ask that the Senate proceed to the c°
sideration of House bill 1438.
f
There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee o f0
Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. K- , ,;[VrieS
provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage the Indus
of the United States, and for other purposes.
. f „nd
Mr. RAYNER. Mr. President, my remarks will be brie , I will kindly ask not to be interrupted. If any of my J
colleagues should disagree with me in any statement that
\
make, I will ask them to wait until I have finished, hew ,sioUs
am almost sure that they will agree with me in the couch
that I have reached.
1909
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
1679
Mr. BURKETT. That is why I asked of the Senator a wheat, of the value of $16,586.10, while for the same year
while ago if the shingle business was not a piecework business. there were imported for consumption in the United States
To be sure, the Orientals earn less in British Columbia because SS3,767,830 shingles, of the value of $1,940,S92.77. Of the two
they do less work. The Senator stated a moment ago that so commodities it would seem that shingles stand in greater need
far as Canadian work was concerned it was piecework. That of protection.
COM M ERCIAL AND LABOR S IG N IFIC A N C E OF S H IN G L E M ANUFACTURE.
is my information. I am also informed that is largely so in
the State of_ Washington.
Our output of lumber and shingles for 1906 was of greater
Mr. PILES. The man who does the piecework is a packer, value than the combined wheat, oat, and barley crops of
as I understand it. That, however, is but a small part of the either Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, or Illinois for 190S. In 1900
work. The packers are paid by the thousand, but the men who we paid out in wages in the lumber and shingle industry a
do the general work are paid by the day. Work of ^ this sum greater than the value of the combined wheat, oat, and
character is performed by Orientals in British Columbia at barley crops of either Iowra, Nebraska, Indiana, Wisconsin, or
from 80 cents to $1.50 per day, which costs us from $2 to $2.50 Ohio for 1908, and greater than the value of the wheat
per day.
crop of either North Dakota, South Dakota, or Minnesota for
It is evident to those familiar with the conditions concerning 190S
the shingle industry that unless the duty is increased we shall
Mr. President, the facts in this case call for relief. I have
within a very short time lose our principal market for red cedar shown that British Columbia can manufacture both lumber and
shingles.
shingles cheaper than we can. She has the advantage in the
price of labor, in the price of stumpage, in the water freight
FA R M E RS 7 IN T E R E S T S J A P H A S E O F CONSERVATION.
It is estimated that the small mills located throughout the rate. It must be plain to all that if the duty be removed our
country furnish a market to 2,000 farmers in my State for the California market is doomed.
There are as I have said, over 500 American vessels on the
shingle bolts which they cut in clearing and preparing their
lands for cultivation. This market is of prime importance to Pacific Ocean, employing 11,000 men, prepared to transport lum
them, as it costs from $50 to $100 per acre to clear logged-off ber. Remove the duty from lumber and what do you do by
way of encouragement to them? If upon the completion of the
lands in western Washington.
Some years ago, when our timber was wasted to the extent Panama Canal you do not put them off the sea, and the seamen
already referred to, our cedar trees were cut a considerable off the ships, you greatly cripple their business. Tins question
distance from the ground. The farmers, shingle-mill owners, is entitled to serious consideration. It involves a great deal
and others engaged in supplying shingle bolts to the mills have more than a mere contest between stumpage owners, as the
gone over the logged-off lands in recent years, cut the cedar Senator from Nebraska [Mr. B ubkett] seems to th m k . I t in
stumps down close to the ground, and split them into shingle volves the welfare of the 800,000 men employed in the lumber
holts. They have also gathered up broken limbs and burnt and and shingle industries of the United States, as n e as that of
discarded portions of the cedar trees and converted them into their Wives and children. It involves our commerce on the sea.
shingle bolts. In this respect the shingle mills are a great aid It touches the homes of half a million people in the State which
to the farmers in clearing up their lands. If they do not
operate, the farmer w ill be compelled to burn up his timber 1 In 'th is'view 'd V yo^ w on d e^ th ff I press the subject upon the
which he now converts into shingle bolts, and lose the money
atS ? Wpnrefid?nt,Si nam done. I have imposed upon the indul
which he now receives from their sale.
Our shingle m ills are the greatest conservators of our forests gence of the Senate much longer than I intended to when I bethat we have. They conserve them in two w a y s : First, they I?an this discussion The importance of a correct solution of
ctimi ot issiw to the States of the Pacific slope in parafford a market for a waste product; and, secondly, they in £.an
- Justification I
duce the removal of tlio material from logged-off lands which, HcuHr f r tf t h e SUceA n t “ at I»rge. is .lie
if permitted to remain, becomes a constant fire menace to our S o to offer for the consumption of so much of your valuable
standing forests.
Air President, is yet young. She w ill not reach
„ Canada buys practically no shingles from us, but she con
tinues year by year to increase her exportations into this coun J ' f S T e S ' i & S f S a .lie l l t t tfay e l next November.
try, while we are compelled by reason thereof to decrease our , t nrnt. ..... niPRsnre to see her grow from a Territory to a State.
output, to the injury not only of our shingle manufacturers [ hTve w a t S t o p w ^ s s A e i t b affectionate and. I trust,
but to the detriment of the wage-earners in this particular pardonable pride, since the days of early manhood.
I have seen her in the throes of a terrible panic, and in the
industry.
midst of universal prosperity. Her people have at all times and
P R E S E N T DUTY IN S U F F IC IE N T P RO TECTIO N .
under all conditions—whether favorable or adverse—maintained
In 1908 Canada sold $2,876,394 worth of shingles in our
.
markets, while she purchased from us in that year $S,S73 worth their faith in her future.
You may obstruct licr onward marcb foi a tini© by striking
of shingles. During the last five years she sold in our markets
$9,353,074 worth of shingles, while she took from us during her principal industry a terrible blow; you may give her an
the same period $56,913 worth of shingles. Seventy-five per army of idle or underpaid men; you may inflict upon her people
cent of $9,353,074 is $7,014,805.50. Had we had reasonable an unreasonable and unjust loss, but you can not prevent the
protection on shingles this sum would have gone into the pockets fruition of their hopes. Her future is secure Nature has
of the shingle weavers of this country. Here, then, is an ap blessed her beyond compare, given her forests that can not be
proximate loss of over $7,000,000 to the shingle weavers in approximated elsewhere on the globe sa \e i the States of the
Pacific. She gave Washington the most picturesque of laudthis country in the last five years.
W ill any fair-minded man say, in view of the facts which I locked seas, which reaches back from the ocean into the very
have submitted, that the duty on shingles should not be in heart of the State. She gave her the greatest rivers of the
West. Her soil is underlaid with coal and m her mountains
creased?
No one who is acquainted with the facts will deny that our are stored iron, copper, lead, and tin and all the precious
mills are closed down from three to five months each year, metals. The water power of her rivers is rivaled only by the
and no one who is acquainted with the facts will deny that the falls of Niagara. Her fields are burdened with gram and her
men employed in this business were conservative when they orchards are bending with fruit. Her shores are washed
staged, in the resolutions which I have submitted to the Senate, by the waves of the greatest of oceans and her ports v, ill become
that Canadian importations are taking a million dollars a year the principal transshipping points of the Occident and the
Orient.
out of their pockets.
It is not the fault of her people that British Columbia, with
My friend, the senior Senator from North Dakota, has asked
that the duty on wheat be increased from 25 cents to 30 cents her immense timber area, is not a part of the Republic, for the
pioneers
of the old Oregon country extended their settlements
a bushel in order to protect the farmer. I have no objection
to this. I am glad to see the farmer get such protection on his to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude under very adverse
products as is necessary to protect him in his enterprise, but conditions. They saved the timbered areas of Oregon, W ash
I do object to the effort that is being made here to reduce the ington, and Idaho as the heritage of all. Had it not been for
duty on lumber and shingles, to the detriment of the wage- their heroic efforts Canada would now own it all. It would iil
earners and manufacturers not only of the State of Washington become Congress to cripple or destroy our greatest industry
now that it has acquired value in the commercial life of our
but in all the lumber-producing States in the Union.
I find, from the tables which the Finance Committee has States.
submitted showing rates and duties collected under the law of
We ask but for little—the protection of our property and o u r
1897, for the year ended June 30, 1907, that there were im laboring masses against the unfair and unjust competition of
petition o£
ported in the latter year for consumption 19,142.93 bushels of Asiatic labor on both land and sea.
1(580
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
f
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendments
which I shall propose at the proper time, to the woolen sched
ule, paragraph .'175, and to every other schedule where the duty
is shown by our records to be prohibitive; and at the conveni
ence! of (ho Senate I desire to address it with regard to that
subject-matter.
I should like to have the amendment entered on the face of
the R ecord, so that it may be seen by the Members of tiny
Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Okla
homa asks that the am end m ent be printed in the R ecord. Is
there objection? The Chair hears none, and the order is made.
The amendment is as follow s:
A fter th e la s t lino of p a ra g ra p h 375 I n s e rt: . . . . . .
“ T h a t the ra te fixed on all a rtic le s en u m erate d In th is p arag ra p h
sh a ll ho reduced 5 per ce n t per annum of th e ra te fixed In th is act,
a n n u a lly on J u n e 30, for each of th e n e x t ensuing te n fiscal y e a rs :
P r o v i d e d , T h a t If sucii g ra d u a te d reduction sh a ll cause a d im in u tio n of
th e a n n u a l revenue from any one or m ore of th e above-enum erated
artic le s, tho P re sid e n t Is au th o rise d and d irected to fix th e ra te on any
such a rtic le or a rtic le s a t th e p o in t a t w hich such a rtic le or artic le s
severally a re found to have th e g re a te s t n orm al revenue-producing
pow er, but not a t a ra te h ig h e r th a n th e ra te fixed in th is a c t:
P r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , T h a t th e r a t e sh a ll n o t be reduced or fixed below th e
point a t w hich it w ould produce an
^2
th e cost of th e pro d u ctio n of a n y such m ti d e iu th e U nited S ta te s und
abroad."
Mr CULBERSON I offer two amendments to the pending
bill, and ask that they be printed and lie on the table. They
are intended to put bagging and ties on the free list.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendments will be re
ceived, printed, and lie on the table.
Mr. BORAII. Mr. President, those who are members of the
majority party in tills Chamber and who ate advocating an in
come tax do not concede that they are outside of party lines or
that they are advocating policies or principles which are new or
radical We believe we are advocating policies and principles
that are well accepted as a part of the faith to which we sub
scribe and that we are advocating principles as old as the
revenue laws of the United States. We advocate an income tax
not ns a temporary measure for the purpose of securing revenue
for temporary purposes, but because we believe it should he a
permanent part and portion of tho revenue system of tho United
States.
„
1 have reread within tho last few weeks tho cultured and
faithful biography of John Sherman, written by one of the
honored Members of this body. Although read with that ob
ject in view, I did not find that that great leader in his day was
given to radicalism, socialism, or that lie was often swung from
Ills nioorinKS as a conservative statesman. He was one of the
steadfast and sturdy councilors of this country in a very trying
hour. Long after the war had closed and after we had had the
experience of an income tax for some several years, after we
had known its benefits and its defects, its failures and its
virtues, and after the necessity of maintaining it as a war tax
liml passed, this distinguished leader of his party, in 1871, said:
They have declared It to be invidious. W ell, sir, all tax es a re in
vidious. They say it Is In quisitorial. W ell, sir, th ere n ever w as a ta x
In the w orld th a t w as n o t in q u isito ria l I the le a s t inq u isito rial of all is
th e Income tax. * * * T here never w as so ju s t a ta x levied as the
income ta x . T here Is no objection th a t can be urged a g a in s t the in
come ta x t h a t I can n o t p o in t to in every tax.
* * W riters on
po litical economy ns w ell as o u r own sen tim en ts of w h a t Is ju s t and
•lirht teach us th a t a m an o u g h t to pay tax es according to his income.
* * * T he income ta x Is th e cheapest ta x levied except one.
M ax 3,
L*e. , £ C°me
i^ ° °?le. does to tho wages of the other. * * * M
l 1n}l<icul? li1!a*<>s, bJ1ls injustice in the fundamental basis of our sys
tem will be felt and forced upon tho attention of Congress.
it would be useless to amplify upon that statement of this
great statesman and distinguished party leader. It states in a
oriel paragraph the whole contention of those who are to-day
advocating an income tax, not, as has been suggested here, for
Jhe purpose of raising revenue for temporary purposes alone,
but that it may become engrafted in and a part of—an inseparabie part of—the general revenue system of the United States, in
order that we may arrive as nearly as we can, as human ingenuity can make it, at a tax which is levied upon a man’s
ability to pay and in accordance with what he derives as a
measure of benefit from bis Government.
I am aware it will be said that Mr. Sherman voted against
the income tax of 1894, but I have reread within the last fcW
days the debate which occurred at that time, and especially the
speech of Mr. Sherman, and lie was careful to say that he him
self had reread the speech which lie liad made in 1871, and that
there was nothing in that speech which he desired to modify or
m any way change; that he voted against the income tax at
that time because of the details of the bill, and especially with
reference to its exemptions, and also for the reason that be
thought that at that time there was uo necessity for it.
Senator Morton, one of the safe and conservative counselors
of his party and his Nation, said upon one occasion:
s ta te m thparlnU,r,inhJndfat1Va’ aud } undertake to say In every other
tar hns t
i.
* 111 cY,ery inquisitorial feature that the income
is the
^ ali otb$rs ls the most equitable because it
the country1 mLasure tbat ^as been found of the productive property of
And another great leader of that era used this language:
tl-Jnavmlnf1^
tbe books so, uttJe felt> so absolutely unfclt in
UDOI? whom11?f fe ll. Hiu, lnco,me tax by the possessors of great fortunes
upon wnom it falls. Ihere is not a poor man in this country not a
laborer in this country but who contributes more than 3, more than 10,
moie than 20 per cent of all his earnings to the Treasury of the United
States, under those very laws against which I am objecting, and now
we are invited to increase their contributions and to release those
tofore* COIltrIbutlons wllich we have been receiving from incomes here
in this connection I call attention to a later R epublican
leader. While he was not at the time specifically discussing the
income tax, he was discussing the basic principles upon w hich
(hat tax is based, aud that is the obligation of property and
wealth to tho Government, which protects property and wealth.
This is the language of Mr. Harrison, after he had retired from
the presidency:
We live in a time of great agitation, of a war of clashing thoughts
a £ eI,n1 that aome men are handicapped ; that
liml
e>.iwh*0 i?o’, t lat tlie ,old and much vaunted equality of opportunity
!!!-., h,L S , 1
been submerged. More bitter and threatening thing*
nnLPn tvj sa d an(! written against accumulated property and corporate
LmitIi1 ./won ever, before. It is said that, more and more, small men,
II
l ft t.Sr
k !a' t0l1Y ‘ir2 being thrown upon the shore aS
linaiKial drift, that the pursuit of cheapness lias reached _
‘ stage
where only enormous combinations of capital doing
d<
an enorm ous business, are sure of returns.
1
’
the race‘uf sold
Again he says:
,, (
class of ou r people has never failed to respond to
th e fire alarm , th ough th e y have only sm all n ro n ertles a t risk, and
these n o t im m ediately th re aten e d . B u t th ere h? d an g er \ h a t they will
Jose th e ir zeal as firem en if those In w hose a p a rtm e n ts th e fire h as been
p a rtm e n t ° “ 0 t P“ y th e ir p ro p o rtlo n ate sh are of th e cost of th e fire de-
Tlie people who consider themselves as conservative upon the
question of making revenue laws ought not to forget that this
It Is th e only ta x levied In th e U nited S ta te s th a t fa lls upon prop principle spoken of by the ex-President inheres in the discussion
e rty o r office or on b ra in s th a t yield p ro p erty and in th is respect Is ot all these matters, and that is that unless there is a corre
.listIruruished from all o th e r ta x es levied by th e U nited S tates, all of sponding obligation faithfully met there may arise that condiw hich arc levied upon consum ption, th e consum ption of the rich and
tion in the public mind which will unsettle not only the prop"
the poor, th e old and th e young.
erty interests, but the stability of the Government under which
Mr. Sherman at the same time declared in favor of the con the
property exists.
R eferrin g at that time to the bank tax.
Again lie said:
stitutionality of th e tax and defended it against the assaults
which are usually made against the income tax, because at that
time tile same argum ents were used against the (ax that arc
used to-day. You will not see even in the discussion now any
thing that was not foremost in the arguments against the tax
at the time it was in existence.
Many years afterwards, and long after this tax had been repealed by the narrow vote of 1 in Congress, and upon an occa
sion when he was discussing in a general way the revenue sys
tem of the United States, lie used this language:
The public mind is n o t yet prep are d to apply th e code of a genuine
revenue reform . B u t years of fu rth e r experience w ill convince th e
whole body of our people th a t a system of n a tio n a l ta x es w hich rests
I he whole burden of ta x a tio n upon consum ption and n o t one cen t on
p roperty or income Is In trin sically u n ju s t. W hile th e expenses of Nntlo n al G
ent a re largely
.,
' overnm “-J'
caused by th e p rotectio n of p ro p erty , it
ri^ h t to require p roperty to c o n trib u te to th e ir paym ent. I t will
n t h a t each person consum es In proportio n to his means.
L very °“ e can see th a t th e consum ption of th e rich
s n o t hoar th e sam e relatio n to th e consum ption of th e poor th a t
Again he says:
The plea of business privacy has been driven too hard If for mcl'S
statistical purposes we may ask the head of the family whether there
are any idiots in his household and enforce an answei lfv court process,
we .may surely, for revenue purposes, require a dote led list of hi*
cuntles. the men who have wealth must not hide it from the taxgatherer and flaunt It on the street. Such things breed a great disconlT o n ^soldier
l(ll(uelwTiinc^>;
TIley bearofa adlsproportionatf
burdenMiong
will carryWthe ,knapsack
crinRed comrade,
but 1A0
burden!* P°
‘ 11 r°bUSt shlrk to add so much as as his tin cup to tUfl
Again he says:
is r r ! U V T r ^ , ! f H cnnJ the (bought that the preservation oi
th isnnPOf
p rin cip le ofnnnh
a p ro por,tionatc
p o rtio n ate con
i l S 1' according to the tui«
contribution,
value of whnf
w h a t each m
an has to the
tim
L.yAii ' exnoruiifnfes
,'
what
nubile
is ew
essentialr
to tho maintenance
ofman
n i has,
w ’
p
Jumc expenditures is
In m u r a m S . 0' ° Ul' W
andT pT aT a^go^"order
Mr. BEVERIDGE. I wish to ask the Senator if that in )l0*'
Geueial Ilturisons speech at Chicago? Is it not the Chicfigd
speech?
1909.
In this connection I desire to send to the Secretary s desk
to be read the words of a great Senator, spoken m this Cham
ber in 1883, while, I think, the Morrison tariff bill was under
discussion. I ask that the extract from Senator 1 est s speech
TheVnhfsiDING OFFICER. W ithout objection, the Secre
tary xyill read as requested.
The Secretary read as fo llo w s:
As I_ s___
a id th ee o th e r d ay , I h a v e n e v e r risen myself to t h a t s o la
region, t h a t high p h ilo so p h ic a l lu n a r a l tit u d e .w h e re I co u ld o v er o
th e people who s e n t m e h e re a n d th e S ta te w h ich “
f
give me a p lace on th is floor. W h ile I am a Senator of the U n ite d
S ta te s . I am n o t h e re to ta k e c a re e s p e c ia lly of M assachusetts or I
sylvania, when th e y h a v e S e n a to rs u p o n th is floor who, more ably th a
X can p o ssib ly do, look to th o s e in te r e s ts . I b elieve, a s a D em oc at
t h a t th e lig a m e n t w h ic h b in d s these S ta te s together to a com m on p ro s
P erity a n d in a g lo rio u s U n io n is th e lig a m e n t b a se d u p o n s ta t e in te r
ests, local in te re s ts , a n d th e f a c t t h a t ev e ry local in t e r e s t is re p re s e n te d
u p o n th is floor a n d in th e C h am b er o f th e other H ouse.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a Senator has just asked me
from whose speech the extract which has just been read ''a s
quoted. I will say it was quoted from the speech of a distin
guished Senator who has been referred to many times in recent
debates upon this floor as an old-time Democrat; a senator
whose fervid eloquence had given a charm for twenty-four years
to the debates in this Chamber; a Senator whose pathos has
moved his colleagues to tears, whether in pronouncing a eulogy
upon a dead Member or paying a tribute to mams best friend,
the dog.
Mr. STONE. If my colleague will permit me, I should like to
observe that I think that is the only expression which ever fell
from tlie eloquent lips of my distinguished predecessor, so much
beloved in Missouri, that my colleague has ever applauded.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, the discussion on the lead
schedule seems to have reached a point where the only question
remaining to he determined is as to the adequate rate of duty
to be fixed. I do not by that remark desire to have it under
stood that I allege that every Senator in the Chamber will sup
port a duty on lead or any of the products of lead, but I do
think that a decided majority of the Senate is in accord with the
policy which has prevailed with reference to the lead industry
for a long time. I shall not, therefore, detain the Senate in any
description of the vast industries, not alone of lead mining and
the manufacture of lead products, but the vast interests involved
in the complex commercial and industrial life of certain States in
the Union where this lead production is of great local importance.
The subject is not a new one, and we are not, therefore, re
quired to speculate as to the duty which may he deemed ade
quate. Under the tariff law of 1883 lead ore w as made dutiable.
In 1883 the Treasury Department held that lead ore was an
ore in which the lead value predominated over the value of
any other metallic substance contained in the ore. Lead ore as
mined in Mexico and also in Colorado. Idaho, and other states
of this Union is generally accompanied or found in union with
silver, gold, and sometimes copper. This Treasury construc
tion, that ore predominating in silver value w as silver ore
rather than lead ore where the silver value predominated or
exceeded the lead value, led to vast importations of lead from
Mexico under the classification of silver ore, free of duty, and
that line of importations from Mexico closed down the silverlead mines of Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and the entire Rocky
Mountain country, besides introducing into the commerce of the
country a surplus of free lead, which put the Missouri lead
miners out of business. An attempt was made to have that
Treasury ruling reversed, but without success.
When the McKinley bill came forward for consideration, the
language now employed in the pending measure w as used to
prevent or preclude such construction as has led to mischievous
results; so that this phraseology is now employed in fixing the
article on which the duty is to be levied at 11 cents per pound,
to w it :
Lead-bearing ore of all kinds, l i cents per pound on the lead con
tained therein.
Under this phraseology the amount of gold or silver in the
ore is of no avail as a means of evading the duty intended to
be imposed on the lead imported with the ore. Notwithstanding
the duty was 14 cents a pound at the time this evasion to which
1 have referred occurred, the evasion was sufficient to reduce
the price of lead In the United States to a point where Missouri,
with its splendid measures, Colorado, with its great deposits,
and Idaho, with its superb mines, were all forced to yield to the
production in Mexico, upon a law that has never been enacted
and never can be repealed—the law relating to the cost of labor
as a factor in production. Miners were paid from 50 to 75
cents per day in Mexico to mine this ore. They could not be
induced to work in the United States for less than from $2 to
1819
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
$3 50 per day, working eight hours per day, as the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. W a r n e r ] suggests to me. Very naturally the
75-cent man put the $3.50 a day man out of business.
A little later on, the phraseology being retained, the duty on
lead ore was reduced to three-quarters of a cent per pound.
That reduction was tantamount to placing the lead in the oie
on the free list. This is not a matter of speculation; it is a
matter of history. One of the most lusty and vigorous of the
brigades in Coxey’s army came in from the lead mines of the
Coeur d’Alene country.
„
Mr. President, the fact that production has been increasing
in hut a meager way under the l i cents per pound duty, the fact
that a slight evasion of the duty at that rate w ill prostrate this
lead industry, the fact that it has been shown that a duty of
three-fourths of a cent a pound is no better than free trade in
lead or lead ore or the contents of lead ore, amounts it seems
to me, in our current experience to a demonstration of the fact
that, as to this schedule at least, we have secured that which
is adequate and not excessive as a rate of duty.
It is difficult to go into au analysis of the comparative
efficiency as to miners or any other class of woikmen. Mathe
matically considered, many questions are to be taken into con-to * A
in
■
i ^ r a a u ^ e r of a cootary to
guide us, it is not necessary to md"lg® E J? co n clu sio n s U§ 1 1
maze or labyrinth of figures to w a d i correct contusions.
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. S tone] thinks $1 per nun
dred or 1 cent per pound, would be an adequate duty on lead,
uieu, oi -l ' “ ny i . ’
a cent a pound w as rumI submit to him that thiee-fourtn
. , t no| r.e anv Keiter
tiie meager advance he suggests might urn De any Denei.
ous, ami me ine<i»ei
, , _pCinit in keeping our miners
We do know that this duty "ould r e s u a iu
i U at work and all the activities'Connected. wrth the mining opeia
t io n s o fth e c o m itr y m a
ea
yJ*1
The Senator from M«souri. said tn
Je }ie w ou ld stand
hundred> or q cent per
; C d . " o X T S c thinks that on the products of lend the duty
° UMr P r S i S
the1CptScfiJlo“ a'i)plieable to th is schedule will
r u f t h " .^
T . s eofair s s
sider in connection vvi
on tlie wool imported into this
grower of wool to «
conditions to ship his wool to foreign
country if he is bound - . . of avail to him only with the
markets for sale, l i e
• p
j should like to have the
American market P la c e t o s e l
•
or 10 cents a pound
Senator from M issoun explain ^ ^ atever t0 lead producers
duty on lead would - ucers are deprived of the Amerin Missouri, if those
p u tlieir lead; and the American
ican markets m wine
dependent upon the continuance
market for the sale o
■ . ' . tPe various forms in which it
of the manufacture
■
tpe consumer. Put white lead
is useful to comm
•
t
white lead so that it can
on the free list or rediice th e ffu ty ,0 ^
(.mintry> ^
a (P]fy
not he successfully
•
, contained in Missouri ore is
of 10 cents a pound o
‘ ^ of q cent per pound, because,
no better than a duty
Missouri must be sold in the open
in either event, the ‘
j Qf jU the protected market of the
’KZSSTS
from Missouri either to abandon his position u i anj aurj upon
110111 .uiMuuu eiiuci i
onnnnrt bv a reasonable compensalead or constrains him
*
0f lead products, so that
tory duty the American manufacturer
*
produced in
he may have a market at home for that which is produced m
MiItS°seems to me these propositions are elemental. A producer
o t s o S f f i “ raw material •' h. the DnK
aw
be benefited by a protective duty °“
J®'cd ti g .irf. taken
terial ” if all the compensatory and protective duties
e
0V r heNELSONP r Mr.CPresident, without intending to take up
the'fim^ of t i e Senate or delay a vote I desme’ to^give a brief
citation from that standard work e ^ t le d Imports a d DuUes
1834 to 1907, House Document 1504, second session, bixtietii
Congress.” Looking at the statistics furnished in that book, it
does not appear that the tariff has had exact J,
e effect on
lead ore for which the Senator from Montana [M i. C arter ]
contends. I find on page 579 that in 1830, under the tariff law
of 1894, when there was a duty of three-foui tlis of a cent per
pound on lead, there were 42,973,425 pounds of lead imported,
and that the average import price was 1.0 cents per pound. I
find that, under the Dingley law, in 1900, ten years later, we im
ported 70.720,321 pounds, almost twice as much as in 1896, and
that the import price was exactly the same—1.0 cents per
pound.
1820
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
M ay 7,
Mr. ALDBICII. But if the Senator will look at the Import would, upon a reconsideration of this matter if again submitted
prices for the other years, he will And that the year he has by the Congress and in the light of what I shall now submit to
selected was the only one under the act of 1897 when the price the Senate, change its opinion, because I think I can demon
was 1.6 cents.
strate^ to the Senate that the Supreme Court ought to change
Mr. NELSON. We imported 70,702,321 pounds In 1906. In its opinion, and that the defense of the income tax before the
1907 we imported 29,738,375 pounds.
court was fatally defective.
Mr. ALDRICH. Aud the unit of value in that case was 1.9
The controversy as to whether or not the Income tax is con
cents. In 1908 it was 2.6 cents. The year selected by the Sena stitutional turns upon the interpretation of the meaning of the
tor from Minnesota is the only year of the eleven years in which words “ direct tax,” as used in clause 4, section 9, Article I, of
the value reached the point suggested by him.
the Constitution.
Mr. NELSON. The statistics show that under the Dingley
I have considered the decisions and the arguments made and
law and under the Democratic tariff law of 1894 lead-bearing the history of this clause, and think it my duty, as a Member
ore is put in two classes. There is, Orst, lead contained in sil of this body, to make record of my conclusions with regard to
ver ore. The import of that was, as I have said, 42,973,425 the true meaning of this term as used in the fourth clause of
pounds. The import price was 1.6 cents per pound. Now, of section 9. I do not agree with those who hold that the direct
lead contained in other ores and dross during that same year tax here referred to, and which is inhibited unless appor
there were imported only 363,168 pounds, and the price was 3.9 tioned, means a tax on real property or on the individual at
cents per pound. I have looked through this book, and in many all; its real meaning is a direct tax on the United States, to
instances it will be found that, even where you increase the be apportioned uj)on said States severally, in a c c o r d a n c e to
tariff, you do not diminish the importations. By increasing the their population under the constitutional plan of apportioning
tariff you simply enable the producer to levy a greater tribute. representation, and does not mean a direct tax on the citizen in
I understood the Senator from Utah [Mr. Sutherland] to say any sense.
that the price of lead was 4 cents, or _3i cents. I should be
In the Hylton case, decided by the Supreme Court in the
glad if the Senator would state it again.
February term of 1796, the court decided that a tax on carriages
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I said that during the period that the was not a “ direct tax,” under clause 4, because not capable of
Wilson law was in operation —
' apportionment. It was a correct conclusion. But the reasoning
Mr. NELSON. I mean now—the last two or three years; the premises were erroneous, because Justice Iredell said (3 Dallas,
year of 1907, for instance.
, 181) to support the conclusion it was not a direct tax, under
Mr. SUTHERLAND. The price has ranged through the last clause 4, that “ a tax on carriages is a tax on expense or con
twelve vears from 4 to 6 cents. I do not recall that It has fallen sumption,” and in effect an indirect tax.
E V S c e n t s ! although it may have done so
He should have said, “ Congress has a right, under s e c t i o n 8,
Mr. NELSON. That shows that it has been sold for the to impose on the citizen a direct tax. The ‘ direct tax ’ of c la u s e
4, section 9, requiring apportionment, exclusively refers to a
import rate plus the duty.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. It reached the price of 6 cents only at direct tax on the United States apportioned severally."
Justice Patterson, conceding, erroneously, that a direct tax
one time for a very short period. The average price has been
somewhere between 4 and 5 cents. Upon one occasion lt^dul on the citizen required apportionment, erroneously argued that
. a tax on carriages was indirect and therefore permissible.
reuch as high as 6 cents.
.
, , ,
I " Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I trust that I will not be Inter I He said because it was in the nature of a duty or a tax on
rupting the debate if at this time I ask the indulgence of the :expense and an indirect tax, he supported it. But lie was justified
Senate for a few minutes that I may place upon the record a ;iu supporting it as a direct tax under section 8, and it could not
be described as falling within the meaning of a “direct tax"
brief comment upon the constitutionality of the income tax.
I believe in the policy of the income tax not only because it [In any contingency under clause Jf of section 9. He said he sup
is justified on the principle of the more equitable distribution of ported it because it was “ in the nature of a duty or a tax on
the proceeds of human labor and that those with great incomes expense and an indirect tax.”
And Justice Chase likewise said (ibid., 175) :
j
should contribute more to the support of government, but because, also, it will excite the interest of the wealthier classes in
It seems to me that a tax on expense is an indirect tax.
|
a more economical administration of government and in a purer
The decision of the court was sound in sustaining the tax, but
form of government.
„
,
...
.
it was decided upon the erroneous theory that a tax on carriages
I favor an income tax broadly and without any limitations was not a direct tax, and that if it had been and was not capable
to adjust it to the opinion of the Supreme Court recently ren of apportionment, it could not be laid by Congress.
dered' (1S94) in the Pollock case.
Justice Iredell also said:
I shall not take the time of the Senate to discuss the ad
a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution can mean noth
visability of the income tax from the standpoint that it is justi ingPerhaps
hut a tax on something inseparably annexed to the soil; somctlwW
fied because it falls upon those more easily able to conveniently capable of apportionment under all such circumstances. A land or a
meet the expense of the Government; since this considera poll tax may be considered of this description.
tion, while of interest, would be of little avail if the income tax
And throughout the entire decision there runs an apologetic
vein—the idea that the United States did not have the right
were unconstitutional.
In view of the arguments submitted before the Supreme Court, to lay taxes directly on the citizen; but if a direct tax were
its opinions in favor of an Income tax for one hundred and eight laid upon the citizen, it must be apportioned.
! vears and its change of view by the narrow margin of one vote
And this-erroneous conception of this phrase, used in clause 4,
1 in 1894 I agree with the Senator from Texas [Mr. B a il e y ] section 9, by the influence of the weight of the doctrine of stare
that we are justified in asking that there shall be a reconsidera decisis, has perpetuated this error from 1796, when the court
tion of this question, and I shall agree, moreover, to the propo decided correctly upon erroneous reasoning, down to 1904, when
sition of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. B b o w n ], if, upon re the Supreme Court, upon this erroneous reasoning of previous
consideration, the Supreme Court still adheres to its opinion, decisions decided against the income tax erroneously, but logi
that we shall propose an amendment to the Constitution, of the cally enough having accepted this false premise. The false
United States for the purpose of writing permanently in the premise was that a “ direct tax,” within the meaning of clause 4.
policy of this country this method of raising revenues fo r jh e section 9, Article I, meant a direct tax on the citizen and not a
direct tax on the United States. The exact contrary was true.
conduct of government.
This question has been discussed with wonderful learning and
>—-at,- BROWN. Mr. President-----The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla vast research, but in all of this discussion the learned bar and
bench has faithfully bowed down to the influence of stare
homa yield to the Senator from Nebraska?
decisis and learnedly perpetuated the original error. Both the
- Mr. OWEN. With pleasure.
™,
Mr. BROWN. I do not like to have the Senator from Okla friends and the foes of the income tax have acquiesced in tlie
homa misunderstand my position. I am not in favor of waiting original and fatal error.
The clauses relating to this matter are as follow s;
until the Supreme Court of the United States has reviewed its
former decision in this matter before proposing an amendment
Article I, section 8, clause 1 The Congress shall have power to Wj.
:s, and
an.
and
collect taxes, duties, imposts,
ana excises, to pay
pay the
me debts
ueu« rr„A
to the Constitution. My proposition is to submit the amend
for the common defense and the general welfare of the Unite
ment now, and at the same time adopt an amendment to the bill provide
S tates; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall ho uniform througno
irovldlng for an income tax.
n. the United States.
,
„+irles
Article I, section 0, clause 5: No tax or duty shall be laid on artit
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I will agree with the Senators
from any State.
tax
from Nebraska as to the immediate consideration and submis \l exported
Article I, section 9, paragraph 4 : No capitation or other direct
.
sion of the proposed constitutional amendment. I was only j shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration
intending to suggest that I believe the Supreme Court itself / before directed to be taken.
I
1909.
V ---------------------------- -The enumeration referred, to Is found in Article I, section 2,
clause 3, to w it :
R epresentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the sev
eral States which may be included within th is Union according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by the adding to tne
whole number of free persons, including those bound to service tor a
term of years and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other
persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years alter
the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every
subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law
direct.
Direct taxes may have either of two m eanings:
First, direct taxes imposed by the State, county, or munici
pality directly on the citizen.
Second, dix-ect taxes imposed on the United States, as sov
ereign separate entities, by the Congress, to be apportioned
according to population under the same rule as determined the
representation of such States.
To arrive at the true meaning of the “ direct taxes ” referred
to in these two latter clauses it is necessary to consider the his
tory of this phrase.
Obviously, a “ direct tax ” might have been imposed by Con
gress on the United States by making direct requisition on them
for $100,000 apiece for the common expense, and as each of them
were sovereign powers, claiming equal right of representation,
this would not have been altogether unreasonable, and it was
to avoid this direct tax and uniform direct tax on the States
which led to clause 4, section 9, requiring its apportionment.
No such reason obtains as far as the direct tax on the citizen
is concerned.
But the phrase “ direct tax ” might also be used within the
State to mean the direef; tax levied on the citizen by bis State,
by his county, or by his municipality. And here is where the
confusion has occurred, for both bench and bar have failed to
perceive that the terms “ direct ta x e s” and “ direct t a x ” in the
above two clauses exclusively meant “ direct taxes ” and “ direct
tax ” to be laid on the United States as States and therefore to
be apportioned, and did not mean “ direct taxes ” or “ direct
tax ” on the citizen, the apportionment of which among the
States was meaningless, illogical, absurd, and impracticable.
The xvord “ tax ” is a very comprehensive word, and possibly
includes all burdens and impositions by virtue of the taxing
power with the object of raising money for public purposes, and
are direct or indirect according to the manner of imposition.
Ordinarily we regard as indirect taxes duties, imposts, and
excises w-hich are paid by the importer or the manufacturer
and charged to the ultimate consumer by an increased price,
but the Constitution authorized Congress (sec. 8) to lay and
collect taxes on the citizen as well as duties, imposts, and
excises. The latter three are both direct and indirect taxes and
were required to be made uniform ; but the authority under the
Constitution that Congress should lay and collect taxes involves
broadly all kinds of taxes which fall upon the individual, and
this right has been exercised on the individual without question
until 1894, when the Supreme Court of the United States held
the income tax invalid because it was a direct tax and not ap
portioned among the States according to population, as required
by the two clauses last named.
" Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oklahoma
yield to the Senator from South Dakota?
___ Mr. OWEN. With pleasure.
Mr. CRAWFORD. It occurs to me that the proposition the
Senator is now developing is rather an original and novel one.
I may be mistaken about it, however. Do I understand him to
say that the Government of the United States, within the pro
visions of the Constitution, can levy a tax as a direct tax upon
a State as a sovereignty?
Mr. OWEN. I do.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Where do you get the authority for that
proposition?
Mr. OWEN. I am going to explain that at length. I find the
authority in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention.
I find the authority in the Articles of Confederation and in the
Constitution of the United States (clause 4, see. 9, Art. I ). I
find the authority in the acts of Congress of 1798, of 1813, and
of 1815, in which the Congress, in express words by acts of
Congress, laid a tax of so many million dollars, not upon the
citizen, but upon the United States, to be apportioned among the
several States under the constitutional rule.
The defense of the income tax that it was an indirect tax was
found fatally weak by a majority of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Pollock case. Their reasoning was logic
ally correct; their premises and conclusion erroneous.
With that logical reasoning I agree. But I do not agree with
the conclusion, because the United States had a right under
1821
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
section 8 to lay a direct tax upon the citizens and upon the
States, but if it did lay a “ direct tax ” within the meaning of
clause 4 of section 9, then it was exclusively a direct tax upon
the United States as States, to be apportioned among the States
severally according to the rule of population and apportionment
laid down in the Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3.
Congress was given the broad authority to lay and collect
taxes on individuals by section 8; but in laying a (gross) capita
tion or other “ direct tax ” on the United States, Congress was
required to apportion the same under section 9, clause 4, and did
so in the acts of 1798, 1813, 1815, and so forth.
T H E H IS T O R Y E X P L A IN S T H E
W EANING OP T H E TER M
USED.
“
D IR EC T TAX
33 AS
The history of clause 4, section 9, and of clause 3, section 2,
explains clearly that the term “ direct tax ” meant neither more
nor less than a direct tax on the United States, and that it did
not mean a direct tax on the citizen.
This construction makes the Constitution harmonious with
itself, and perfectly coherent and sensible and practicable.
It makes it consistent with the history immediately preceding
the formation of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Fuller well said:
Under the Articles of Confederation, the Government of the United
States was limited in the exercise of this power to requisitions upon
the S tates, while the whole power of direct or indirect taxation of per
sons and property, whether by taxes on polls or duties on imports, or
duties on internal production, manufacture, or use, was acknowledged
to belong exclusively to the States, without any other lim itation than
that of noninterference w ith certain treaties made by Congress. (lo 7
U. S„ 561.)
The practice of Congress prior to the Constitution w as to
make requisition on the States and thus impose a direct tax on
the United States of the Confederation.
^ ^
On the 12th of July, 1777, a draft of the Articles of the Con
federation was submitted to Congress: Article 2 provides as
follow s:
All charges of war and all other expenses^ wliicli shall be incurred for
the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United
States assembled shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which
‘s hall be supplied by the several Colonies in proportion to the number
of inh abitants of every age, sex. and quality except Indians not paym Uvathe protdsioniPof^these^rdcles the Colonies were required to de
fray the expenses of the Confederated States; and Congress was denied
were amended.
(Ibid., 94.)
And thenceforth—
'
The taxation necessary for federal purposes was to bo apportioned
in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and
Inhabitants, including those bound to servitude for a term of years,
and three-fifths of all other persons, except Indians not paying taxes.
The words “ land, buildings, and improvements thereon”
were struck out of the domain of federal taxation at this time
prior to adoption of the Constitution. (2 Ell. Deb., 36, 50; 1
Ell. Deb., 484.)
This apportionm ent of taxation .was not lim ited to direct taxes or to
indirect ta x e s ; but all the property and citizens of the several States
w hich each of the S ta tes was then taxing was made liable far the pro
portion of th a t S tate, according to its population. (2 Ell. Deb., 36, 56.)
The words—
“ land, buildings, and improvements thereon ” were rejected by the
Confederated Congress as not being a convenient source of revenue Tor
the Federal Government, ( l Ell. Deb., 484.)
. , .. . _
This amendment to the Articles of Confederation was sent forth by
Congress to the people, accompanied by an address prepared by M essrs.
Madison, Ellsworth, and Hamilton.
In this address, speaking of population as the rule of taxation,
they said:
This rule, although not free from objection, is liable to fewer than
any other th at could be devised.
, ,
..
,m tli
From the time of their adoption by the confederate c ^ e s s until
the decision in the Hylton case, land, building , and
thereon were never th ereafter regarded as the source of ^
buildin g
Federal Government. It results, therefore, that after lM d, buildings
and improvements th ereon” were withdrawn as a subject of federal
taxation, the requisitions of Congress w ere met^ by the S ta tes by their
own system of taxation. (Ely Taxn., 1 0 9 , C. A. Sewa .)
The various States had their own system of collecting taxes,
and did collect such taxes for the benefit of the States them
selves and for the benefit of the General Government.
In the Massachusetts convention, Mr. Dawes sa id :
Congress had it not in their power to draw a revenue from commerce,
and therefore multiplied their requisitions on the States, and our only
course was to a direct taxation. (2 Ell. Deb., 41.)
A direct taxation of what? A direct taxation of the several
States, and not of the citizens of the State.
On the 16th of July, 1787, the following resolution was
adopted:
Representation ought to be proportioned according to direct tax
ation—
1822
'
M at 7,
CONGRESSIONA L RECORD—SENATE.
Direct taxation of what? Of the citizen? That construction
absurd. Direct taxat Ion of the several States, and nothing hut
that could have been intended. It is not material (turning to
Air. Crawford) that this explanation has not heretofore been
expounded, if Hie record and the history justify this argument,
which they do most abundantly.
And in order to ascertain the alteration in the direct taxation which
may be required from time to time by changes In the relative circumstances of tho sta tes t
Resolved, That n census be taken * * * and that the legislature
proportion the direct taxation accordingly.
And this necessarily meant laid on the States by Congress and
not on the citizen, because to levy a capitation tax on the citizen
under the apportionment rule is unreasonable, while to app°r"
tion a capitation tax on the States under the apportionment
rule is reasonable—
was amended, on the motion of Mr. Read, to Insert after “ capitation”
the words “ or other direct taxes.’’ (5 Ell. Deb., 545.)
Mr. King asked, August 20, 1787 (5 Ell. Deb., 451), wlmt was
meant by direct taxation. And he was not answered, but he
might well have been answered, as far as clause 4, section •><
was concerned. It is u direct taxation on the United States, to
be laid upon them severally in proportion to tho rule of popula*
tion by which the right of representation is fixed.
Mr. Gerry (5 Ell. Deb., 451) moved that—
Proportion the direct taxation of what? Of the citizen? Im
possible. No such interpretation can be put upon this language
with regard to the direct taxation referred to, which was to
be apportioned among the States severally, represented then by
Ihe gentlemen who were then writing the Constitution of the
From flic first meeting of (lie Legislature of tho United States, until
a census shall be taken, all moneys for supplying the Public TreasuiJ
United States.
by direct taxation shall be raised from the several M ates according to
ONLY TUB DIRECT TAXATION OP THE STATU IS BEING H
BUH CONSIDERED.
There was araln a debate over tills suggestion, which culminated in
athe draft of a constitution which apportioned direct taxation nccor1
the number of Representatives, respectively, la the first branch.
Does not this mean direct taxation on the States as such?
UIH1
In the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention,
revised draft of the Constitution
! > W ; VlJt I” of1^September,
Charles Pinkney submitted a draft (S. Doc. 728, 60th Cong-,
was introduced, which provided that “representatives “ and direct
taxes M|1.,n Up annortlonMl on tho basis of population and under the 2d soss., p. 146), and provided that in fixing the power of the
the Articles of Confederation. On this game 12th Congress, that:
rulee Dioscrlhed
Sen!ember
1787
the levme
revised draft of the Constitution
contained
septembei, 1J
« 7, tne
„„lesa in rmmnrtlon
The proportion of direct taxation shall be regulated by the whole
these'woras
That’ ™ capitatfo'n tax' shall be laid unless in proportion
to the census hereinbefore directed to be taken.
The capitation tax in clause 4 to be laid in proportion to tho
[ census, was in like manner, & gross sum to be laid on the states,
according to population, counting tliree-fifths of the slaves in
making such enumeration of the population, fhere was nothing
curious or u n r e a s o n a b l e about this; it was understood that the
slaves bad not the productive quality or the worth of free men,
and that in taxing the States the slave should not be counted
above three-fifths of their number for purposes of taxation or
{ for purposes of representation.
.
This lessened the capitation tax on the States having slaves,
but it was « tax on the States nevertheless and not a tax on
the citizen that was being considered.
It Is clear that a capitation tax levied direct on the citizen
would not and could not be apportioned under the constitutional
rule, which was based on a fixed census of fieenien counting
three-fifths of the slaves.
......
Undoubtedly the Constitutional Convention believed that the
Congress should have (he power of assessing and levying direct
tuxes on the States and to apportion such taxes according to the
rule of population.
Mr. King said:
number of the Inhabitants of every description, etc.
And Mr. Patterson, June 15,1787 (ibid., 150), proposed a reso
lution, as follows:
3. Resolved, That whenever requisitions shall be necessary, Instead of
the present rule, the United States in Couyress be authorised to
such requisitions in proportion to the whole -number of white and other
free citizens, etc.
That if such requisitions he not complied with in the time to he spedpea therein, to direct collection thereof in the noncomplying States; a111*
for that purpose to devise and pass acts directing and authorizing the
same, etc.
Does not this mean a “ direct tax ” on the States, and not on
the citizen, to be proportioned to population?
Air. Luther Martin, in his report to the legislature of Mary
land, said (ibid., 39) that he did not think the General Govern
ment ought to have been given the right to lay “direct ta x es”
in any case, and by this expression ho meant “direct taxes on
the citisen," and that he introduced the following proposition:
And whenever the legislature of the United States shall find it nec
essary that revenue should be raised by direct taxation, having appor
tioned the same by the above rule—
Here by “ direct taxation” lie means taxation of the States—
requisitions shall be made of Ihe respective States to pay into the Con
tinental treasury their respective quotas, within ati time
ume m
in the sai‘‘
It Is n principle of this Constitution that representation and taxa requisition
to be specified, and in case of any of the States failing t°
tion shoubf go hand in hand. *
and taxation to be apportioned.
* , * B^ l hls3r6u e are representation
(* EH* JJeD*» •* *'
comply with such requisition then, and then only, to have power to de
vise and pass acts directing the mode and authorizing the collection 0
Representation of what? Of t h e States. Taxation of what? the same lby direct levy on the citizen, is the alternate].
Of the States. W h y was there a diminished tax placed upon
He said:
the population of the s l a v e h o l d i n g States, and what was its
tt Proposition_bcen acceded to, the dangerous and oppress!''0
purpose? It was to apportion it among the several States, and touts Jh Jh
e,,G*neral Government of imposing direct taxes on % in
the direct tax and the capitation tax were to bo diminished to tants which it now enjoys in all cases, would have been only vested W
three-flftl^s of the number of slaves by the operation of this !• in case ot noncompliance of a State, as a punishment for its do
with** th / requlsIt ton^ lmU Ceased Ul° m°ment that the State complied
constitutional rule.
Mr. Dawes said:
IIo uses the words “ direct taxes” in that one expression
The rule laid down in the paragraph is the best that can be obtained two different ways, objecting to Congress having the right to
for the apportionment of tho little direct taxes which Longiess will
want. (Ibid., 42.)
Mr. Pendleton sa id :
The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale
is just, (a Ell. Deb., 41.)
1AW tfiYDG /HlVX/>+1TVAn 4-U^
, ..
,
u
__
it i ,
!
a m i m a t iL n it; d u d 1
not contribute the quota of taxes directly levied on them, Con
Representation of what? Of the States. Taxation of what? gress might in that contingency exercise the right of dii'eC
taxes on the citizen; and he bitterly complained hi his report
Of the States.
to the Maryland legislature that the Constitutional Convents®
Mr. Nicholas sa id :
The amount of the sums to be raised of tho people Is the same, did not regard las views in this matter, but that they gave to
whether the state legislatures lap the taxes for themselves or for the Congress a complete right “ in all cases ” to levy direct taxes
upon the citizen.
J
General Government. (3 Ell. I)eb.f 09.)
These various quotations show clearly that the direct tax
Did not this mean that the direct tax on the State should be
intended to be apportioned was understood by the Constitution^1
collected by the State?
Convention of the United States as a direct tax on the StatesMr. Nicholas said:
The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants. Each and on the States alone, as entities, to be apportioned among the
State will know from its population its proportion of any general tax.
S <
j S 7 cnt/ ties- to he collected by requisitions, and
(8 Ell. Deb.,- 243.)
Hut clause 4 of section 9 did not mean a direct tax on citi‘
Does not this mean that the tax levied on the State by a zens, which was otherwise provided for in section 8, clause 1,
general tax on the States would be known to the State under the but a direct tax on the United States, to be apportioned and paid
rule?
Bt-indlnp thi°TT' ItAnci 7 is impression is confirmed, notvvdbMr. Randolph said:
When anu sum Is necessary for the General Government, every State
m
u 1s
h
t
1TOli' 1,1
act of C0”8rcss
, will Immediately know its exact proportion of it from the number of
\ t h e people and Representatives. (3 Ell. Deb., 122.)
The phrase:
lllx. “ball lie laid unless in proportion to the census
ncieyibefore directed to bo taken__
Here Congress declares this meaning in the plainest, »l0St
emphatic terms, to wit:
United ^ u t e ^ o t /wLw ® 8-Cna}° and House of Representatives ° t fl$
^^,000,000 ^ M i/i^ ^ a n il^ h e re b y ^ la id — " 6^ ^ '
* *
J
,(
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
On whom?
“ upon the United States— ”
And not on the citizen—
“ and apportioned to the States, respectively, in the manner follow ing:
“ State of New Hampshire____________________________ $17, 705. 362
State of M assachusetts_______________________________ 260, 435. 312 ”
It is true that Congress immediately proceeded in section 2
(1'Stats., 597) to provide for the collection of such a tax by its
own officers, assessing the same on dwelling houses, lands, and
slaves, according to valuation otherwise provided for. But
this does not make the direct tax of clause 4, section 9, any the
less a direct tax on the State, which tax w as duly apportioned
as contemplated by the Constitution as a tax laid on the States
directly and not a tax directly on the citizen. The collec
tion of the tax from the individuals within the States was an
exercise of the power of laying taxes under section 8, unequivo
cally given to Congress, notwithstanding this proviso of
clause 4, section 9, that the direct tax on the States should be
apportioned, and this interpretation of the two clauses is per
fectly consistent, perfectly rational, and makes the several
parts of the Constitution harmonious with each other.
Congress in this act exercised both its power of direct taxa
tion on the States (Sec. 9., cl. 4) and its right of direct taxation
on the citizen (sec. 8. cl. 1) which w as illogical but not unlaw
ful and which was a mathematical misfit, the revenue making a
different sum in every case from the mathematical constitu
tional apportionment.
It is a matter of vast importance to the people of the
United States, and it is of great importance to the Senate of
the United States, to consider the meaning of the Constitution
in the light of the Constitutional Convention and in the light
of these acts of Congress.
The act of 1813 in like manner demonstrates that the direct
tax referred to in clause 4 of section 9 was intended solelv to be
a direct tax upon the United S ta tes; and the law of 1813 says
m the most unequivocal language (3 Stat., 53) that the direct
" on the United States,'’ and the conclusion follows
that Congress understood such direct tax requiring apportionment to be a direct tax on the States and not on the citizen.
Everything depends upon that construction. I f it is only
the direct tax upon the United States that must be apportioned
then the pleading before the Supreme Court in the Pollock
• case was absolutely wrong from beginning to end, and upon
a fatally weak defense it is no great wonder the court decided
against it.
IgListen to the language of the act of 1813, Third Statutes,
“ That a direct tax of $3,000,000 shall be, and is hereby, laid upon
inc United S ta tes— ”
Not upon the citizen. The act of Congress followed the mean
ing of section 9, clause 4, iu levying the direct tax referred to
directly upon the States, and immediately making the appor
tionment as contemplated alone by section 9, clause 4. Congress
had the right otherwise to levy a direct tax upon the citizen,
and has exercised it ever since the foundation of the Gov
ernment.
What sense was there in forbidding the United States Gov
ernment from taxing directly the citizen by uniform laws? And
\\lial. does section 8, clause 3, mean in authorizing Congress “ to
laj <uul collect taxes as well as imposts, duties, and excises if
it does not mean what it plainly says?
May the United States directly tax a sovereign State and
not be permitted to directly tax the citizen of the United States
whose votes established the United States?
The act of 1813 imposed the direct tax on the United States
and under clause 4, section 9, the tax was apportioned to the
States, respectively, in the manner following:
“ New Hampshire---------------------------------------------------------- $96, T93. 37
M assachusetts_________ .__________________ 1 _________ 3 yg| o~0. 98 ”
and so forth. And the collection of the same was provided
by federal officers, but with the express provision, section 7:
That each S ta te m ay p a y its quota into the Treasury of the United
S tates, and thereon shall be en titled to a deduction of 15 per cent i t paid
vc2°j° the 10th day of February next, and 10 per cent if paid before the
1st day of May in the same year.
It cost something to collect this tax. It w as only reasonable
that if a State should pay directly, the cost of collection should
be taken out of i t
These acts demonstrate conclusively that the direct tax re
ferred to in clause 4 of section 9 w as a direct tax to be laid
“upon the United States,” and not upon citizens, and appor
tioned according to population, and that it was not a direct tax
on individuals in any sense that was referred to in clause 4,
section 9.
1823
The act of 1815 is in the same identical language, incapable
of misinterpretation, it seems to me.
The attorneys argued in the Hylton case (179G), that the tax
on carriages was a direct tax not apportioned, and hence invalid.
The attorneys defending said it was an indirect tax on the use,
and so forth.
The error was in conceding that a direct tax on carriages or
on the citizen could not be laid without apportionment under
clause 4, section 9. This was nonsense. The direct tax requir
ing apportionment was a direct tax on the United States fol
lowing the previous plan of the Confederation of direct requisi
tions on the States proportioned to population.
It is perfectly obvious that you could not apportion a direct
tax upon individuals according to the constitutional rule of
population, but you could apportion a tax on the United States
severally according to such rule.
Observe the confusion which would follow the attempt to
apportion a direct tax upon the citizen according to the con
stitutional rule:
. .
First, you must levy the tax directly on the citizen, upon his
real estate, and so forth, at so much ad valorem ; what the gross
amount would be for each State could not he known until it
should have been collected, and after it was collected, then,
when an attempt is made to apportion it—the gross amount—•
under the constitutional rule, it would be found that the gross
amount collected would be too much in some cases, and too small
in other cases, and thereupon a rebate would have to be allowed
to the individuals who paid too much and a further tax imposed
on the individuals who paid too little..
The administration of such a plan is impossible. The mere
suggestion of apportioning a direct tax on the citizen is gro
tesque, and can not be seriously maintained.
In my judgment Congress itself erred in collecting the direct
tax imposed on the States within the meaning of this particular
clause of the Constitution, although it had the right, under sec
tion 8, to lay taxes direct on the citizen, but it would have been
more orderly in laying the tax directly on the Slates to have
permitted the State to respond by requisition before enforcing
payment under the direct tax authorized by section 8, as it did
provide in the act of 1S13, for example.
In my judgment it is utterly immaterial wlietlier the income
tax be regarded as a direct or indirect tax because Congress has
the complete right “ to lay and collect ta x e s ” (sec. 8) on the
individual, direct or indirect, and is not restrained by clause 4,
section 9, which only imposes the apportionment rule on Con
gress in laying direct taxes on the States.
The defense of the income tax on the ground that it is indirect
has been the fatal error of its advocates from the beginning of
the controversy.
Since the entire controversy has turned on the meaning of the
phrase “ direct tax,” as used in clause 4 of section 9, I have felt
impelled to submit to the Senate my interpretation of the Con
stitution and the meaning of this phrase in the light of its
history.
This interpretation, which I have the honor to submit, would
relieve the Constitution of ambiguity, make sections 8 and 9 of
Article I perfectly harmonious, and would make the income tax
constitutional beyond a doubt and justifies the resubmission of
this question to the Supreme Court of the United States for
whose perfect integrity, for whose great ability and vast learn
ing, I entertain the deepest respect and reverence.
Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President, I should like to make an
inquiry, but first, before I ask the question, I wish to make a
statement as to the status of these amendments to the pending
bill as I understand it. If the Senate committee amendment to
paragraph 179 is adopted, it puts a duty of l i cents a pound on
the lead in lead ore. Then it would be necessary to amend
paragraph 180 in order to fix the same duty of 1J cents a pound
on pig lead. If the Senate committee amendment to paragraph
179 is rejected and the Senate committee amendment to para
graph 180 is rejected, then the duty I s the same on the lead in
lead ore as it is on pig lead and bullion.
—-—"-1-***'
Mr. ALDRICH. I f the amendment to pargrai>h ISO should
be rejected, it would leave the matter open for further con
sideration. That would not make the duty 1$ cents a pound on
pig lead. It would be necessary, then, if the Senate desired to
have a duty of 14 cents on pig lead, to provide it by a new
paragraph. But it is a simple matter for the Senator from
Kansas or any other Senator when paragraph 180 is under con
sideration to move to amend the Senate committee amendment,
which provides for 2J cents, making it 1J cents.
Mr. STONE. W ill the Senator permit me? Would not the
same end be accomplished by voting down the Senate committee
amendment to paragraph 179 and the amendment to paragraph
180 ?
1824
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Mr. ALDRICH. Of course If the Senate thinks that there
ought to be the same rate of duty on lead ore and pig lead, I
take It for granted It will vote against the committee amend
ment to paragraph 170. I take it for granted that all those
who think there should be no difference at all between the finished product and the raw material will vote against the amend
ment to paragraph 179. I assume that to be so.
Mr. BRISTOW. And also against the amendment to para
graph 180, would they not?
Mr. ALDRICH. That would not be necessary. If they vote
down the amendment to paragraph 179, paragraph 180 would be
of no use; it would drop out. I would withdraw the amend
ment to paragraph 180, of course, if the amendment to para
graph 179 should be voted down.
Mr. BRISTOW. That is what I wanted to get clearly before
11 Now” '^should like to inquire why a difference of five-eighths
of a cent per pound is put on pig load and the scrap lead, as I
will call it?
Mr ALDRICH I should be very glad if the Senator would
postpone the discussion of that until after we have decided
this onestion It seems to me that that is a question which
ought to come up upon paragraph 180.
Mr BRISTOW But. Mr. President, we can not separate
these'questions, because if we vote down the amendment to par
agraph 379, then we fix the duty the same on both these
1)1 Mr *AT DRICH I do not know whether the Senator from
Kansas listened to the very clear statement of the Senator from
Idaho [Mr. H eybubn] upon that subject yesterday. 1 l ave
never heard a clearer statement made in this body than that
Senator made upon that very question. If the Senator would
m ul the R ecord this morning, I am sure he would find it satis'"toB ItlO T O W 64 p r e s i d e n t . I desire to say that I heard
every word the Senator from Idaho said yesterday and I read
in the R ecord this morning every word that hesaid. Still I do
not know Why it is necessary to put five-eighths of a cent a
pound additional on pig lead above that on the lead in lead ore.
I should like to know the reason why that wns (lone.
Mr HEYBURN Mr President, I do not know that I can
make it clearer but perhaps the demonstration by the figures
tta t would result from it may he of some assistance. The dif
ference of duty,1perhaps, is $12.50 a ton on the bullion. All
these other designations may he Included In bullion, because that
Is what it amounts to; it is bullion; In other words, it is lead
as distinguished from the lead contents in the ores. Twelve
dollars and fifty cents a ton only meagorly represents the cost
of converting lead in ore to lead in bullion. It is merely a ques
tion of wages and the cost of taking the lead out of the ore
and making it bullion. The difference of the duty proposed is
$12.50 a ton. That is wages and the investment necessary in
machinery to convert the lead in ore to lead in bullion; that
Mr.' NELSON. Will the Senator from Idaho yield to me for
a question?
.
,.
..
Mr. HEYBURN. I am speaking in the time of the Senator
from Kansas.
'Hie PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis in the elmir). Does
the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Minnesota?
Mr. BRISTOW. Certainly.
Mr. NIOT.SON. I wish to ask a question for Information. As
I understand It, most of this lead ore comes mixed with other
ore, gold or silver or copper.
*
Mr. HEYBURN. N o ; not most of it.
Mr. NELSON. Well, a good share of it. But that ore is re
duced into bullion or base bullion, is it not?
Mr. HEYBURN. The term “ bullion” covers it.
Mr. NELSON. Yes; bullion. You get a rate of 14 cents a
pound on that. Then by Jhe next process you separate your
bullion, you separate the lead from the silver or the other
parts, and you get a rate of 2J cents more. So for the whole
process, from the time you take the ore out of the ground until
you have separated the lead from the other metals, you get l j
cents plus 2} cents.
Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, no.
Mr. NET,SON. The aggregate duty?
Mr. HEYBURN. I think the Senator is mistaken in his
conclusion.
lea^1orJARNKll‘ Mr‘ Presi(lent> we get no silver out of the
Mr! HEYBURN. ^ V ^ a u ! " 1 aCCUmulating dut^
to reiinc Vouq Cre? 1 Sil0ultl like to inciuirG what it costs a ton
M a y 7,
Mr. HEYBURN. It is not termed longer “ lead ore.” It
an extraction of lead from the ore.
I can, perhaps, make It plainer to the Senator from Kansas.
The lead contents of ore may represent 8 per cent, or it may
represent more or less. New, in the larger fields of production,.
or rather I will say, out of regard to the State of Missouri, in
the field of production outside of the State of Missouri, it is
necessary, first, to concentrate that ore and extract what you
would call the “ native rock,” in which it is contained, to as
large an extent as possible. You take 8 or 10 tons of the ore
as it is mined, and by a process of concentration you eliminate
from it the silica, the slate, and the granite, or whatever it may
lie contained in, until you have the concentrated product. That
still Is not bullion. Your expense in doing that, at a reasonable
estimate, involves an investment of probably $150,000,000 in
concentrating mills in the United States and a labor account of
about 25,000 men in the United States, at a wage of about $4 a
day. After the expense of mining the ore has been disposed of,
that account stands between the ore and the bullion. It does
not become bullion until it is smelted. It goes through two
processes—concentration for the elimination of the great mass
of waste, and then smelting in order to extract the lead from
the concentrated product.
That represents close to $40,000,000 in wages and the inci
dents of labor In addition to the investment in the works neces
sary to_ perform that extraction. That is added to the cost
of the finished product in comparison with the cost of the lead
in the ore. It represents that value.
Now, if you are going to allow lead ore to be mined abroad
and shipped in as ore, and then put no additional duty on the
bullion, they will extract lead from the ore abroad and ship it
into this country as bullion at this lower rate of duty and,
consequently, they will diminish our mining to the extent that
they substitute it for theirs. The wages of this vast expendi
ture that represents the conversion of the lead in ore to lead
In bullion and the cost would be paid abroad. It will not be
paid in this country. rThe machinery for doing it will he con
structed abroad, not in this country.
I would suggest to the Senator that the machinery and the
appliances necessary to perform that extraction can be made
abroad for one-third of the cost in this country. In other words,
great concentrating works and smelters can be built in Ger
many or in Mexico for a third of the amount at which they
c«iu be built in this country. Wc therefore lose the waces represeated by the construction of these works to the laborers of
this country and give it to those abroad.
That is one of the very largest items that enters into this
proposition. We want the wages for mining the ore paid
to American miners. Wo want the wages and the expenditures
incident to the extraction of the lead from the ore paid to the
in vitoL vw w iis coantlT In our State we Purchase something
like 8-,000,000 worth of machinery in our country for the purpo™ °J; converting lead ore into lead bullion or into concentrates.
l hat machinery and those works are produced by American
labor out of American material. Would you substitute the for
eign labor and the foreign material for that? I think not, when
the Senator comes to think of it. The whole principle of pro
tection is that we may draw the benefits of labor and investment to ourselves, so that the money may stay in this country
and be distributed according to the enterprise *
can add a word that may en
lighten the Senator from Kansas, although I am not an expert
in lend producing. The average value of lead in the ore that
is imported is 2 cents a pound. The average value of pig lea(
that is imported is 4 cents a pound, showing a difference h'
the cost of production of 2 cents a pound from the lead ore
to the finished product or to the lead in the bullion or in bar
on pig lead. I am using these figures as an average to show
the approximate difference between the two
Now, the difference in the tariff between’the two is the dif
ference between 1J cents and 2J cents, or five-eighths of 1
cent a pound, which is about 30 per cent on the cost of taking
the lead ore and putting it into lead bullion abroad. I believe
that if the facts should be submitted to the Senate they would
show that that does not equal the cost between abroad and
this country of changing lead ore into lead bullion.
Mr. BRISTOW. As I understand from the remarks of tIl(;
Senator from Idaho, it costs about $12.50 a ton to take the lead
out of the lead ore and make pig or bullion of it.
Mr. HEYBURN. It costs fully that.
,
Mr. BRISTOW. Now, this five-eighths of a cent per poujV
is for the purpose of making up the difference in the cost in this
country and abroad, as I understand it.
Mr. HEYBURN. That is $12.50. That is what it amounts
to—$12.50 a ton.
APDPI('IL Ferhaps 1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
1909.
2081
next inquires under what circumstances the written instrument
was prepared, in order to see whether those circumstances will
throw light upon the question.
He then inquires how those who have been charged with the
duty of acting under the written instrument have acted so as
to determine what the practical construction of it has been,
flnd, last of all, or perhaps in connection with the other methods,
he inquires what conclusion has been arrived at by others,
skilled in the mysteries and subtleties of language, as to the
meaning.
Now, I propose to seek these four sources of information upon
this subject in the effort to ascertain what is meant by the
Constitution when it speaks of direct taxes being apportioned
among the several States according to numbers. First of all I
shall discuss the language of the Constitution itse lf; second,
the history and the circumstances leading up to and surroundmg the adoption of the taxing provisions; third, the practical
construction of the language, in order to see whether or not
the-various acts of Congress which have been passed upon this
subject throw any light upon the question; and, fourth, I shall
discuss the decisions of the Supreme Court which have from
time to time been handed down upon the subject of the mean
ing of this expression in the Constitution.
the alternate of “ duties." So that taxes which were the constitu
tional synonym of duties were to be distinguished from the taxes which
were “ direct taxes.” In other words, it would seem to be the true
construction of the Constitution that taxes which were “ direct taxes "
were to be laid according to the apportionment plan, which in the
second case where those terms are used is connected with their use,
and all other taxes which were not embraced in the term “ direct
taxes ” and were synonymous with “ duties,” etc., were properly em
braced within the terms “ duties,” “ imposts,’ and excises. ’
third clause of section 2, Article I, provides:
Now, I will yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. BORAH. As I understand the suggestion of the Senator
from Utah, it is that keeping out of the clause of the Constitu
tion the Senator has just quoted the word “ taxes ” indicates
that there was a belief in the minds of the framers that taxes
measured a different kind of charges to what duties did, and
that taxes being left out, it necessarily excluded the idea of uni
formity as to that. Then why did they put in the words “ direct
taxes ” at all, if they were using duties and taxes in the sense in
which the Senator suggests? Why did they not say that Repre
sentatives and taxes shall be apportioned if taxes meant some
thing other than duties?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I think it might have been expressed
in that way, but in the general clause conferring the taxing
power they were undertaking to confer it as broadly as lan
guage would confer it.
Mr. BORAH. But the Constitution says that Representa
tives and direct taxes shall be apportioned. Therefore, it would
seem to follow that when they used the word “ direct ” they
were distinguishing a certain kind of tax, and that there were
other taxes which were not direct taxes.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I think the word “ taxes ” in the clause
to which I have directed attention is the generic word, which
includes direct taxes, duties, imposts, and excises—those four
classes—and the capitation tax-----Mr. HEYBURN. Mr. President-----Mr. SUTHERLAND. If the Senator will permit me—and
Congress carved out of the general expression “ taxes ” the
three classes, namely, duties, imposts, and excises, which were
to be laid according to the rule of uniformity, and carved out
of the generic term again the expression “ direct taxes and a
capitation tax,” which were to be laid according to the rule of
apportionment.
Mr. HEYBIJRN. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yield
to the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Certainly.
Mr. HEYBURN. I would inquire of the Senator from Utah
if he does not think that the difference between taxes and duties
that was in the minds of the framers of the Constitution was
that which had always existed? Taxes are the result of the
exercise of the supreme power without considering the will of
the party taxed. Duties are the result of a contract between
the sovereign and the subject. That always distinguished
taxes from duties. One of them was the imperial edict of the
sovereign power that he taxes. Duties, I repeat, resulted from
the agreement that the subject should contribute to the lord of
the fee or whatever the supreme power might be. I think that
was in the minds of the makers of the Constitution.
Mr. BURKETT. Mr. President-----Mr. SUTHERLAND. Permit me just a moment. Of course
(th e word “ ta x e s” and the word “ d u ties” are subject
n
I variety of shades of meaning. I am speaking of the w av in
which I think the words were used in the Constitution
5 1
| Mr. HEYBURN. That is what I was speaking of
And again, at page 459, be sa y s:
This conclusion results from the fact that while the Constitution
limits the power of Congress in reference to direct taxes by requiring
them to be laid according to the census apportionment, and that duties,
imposts, and excises must be uniform throughout the United States, it
could not have meant to allow any taxation which was not included
within one or the other of these groups.
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yield
to the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Will not the Senator permit me to
finish this quotation, and then I will yield? Mr. Tucker pro
ceeds :
For if it did, then It would follow that taxes which were not direct,
on the one hand, or within the terms “ duties, imposts, and excises,”
would be laid at the discretion of Congress without being subject to
either of the limits prescribed for direct taxes or for duties, imposts,
and excises. It would seem, therefore, to be an inevitable construction
T H E LANGUAGE OF T H E C ONSTITUTION.
of the Constitution that no tax could be laid upon the citizen by Con
There are three clauses in the Constitution which wre must gress which was not either subject to the census apportionment or to
requirement of uniformity, else it would leavo t° Congress some un
consider when we come to apply the first test, namely, to read the
restrained power to lay taxes which were neither direct^ nor duties,
and compare the various provisions in order to see wheher or imposts, and excises. All taxation, therefore, which is not direct
not they will throw light upon what was meant by this par “ taxation,” must have been intended to be a general term embraced in
ticular provision. Those three provisions are as follows: The the words “ duties, imposts, and excises.”
» ,.£ eLre! c“ tatives an4 direct taxes shall he apportioned among the sev,' a‘ states which may he included within this Union, according to their
respective numbers.
The first clause of section 8, Article I, provides:
Co?sress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, im,,n a S’ and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense
e?eic?oD0'lrai1i Yelfar.® of the United States ; but all duties, imposts, and
excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Ihe fourth clause of section 9, Article I, provides:
to
<pn Hwrn d■rect tax shall be laid, unless in proportion
me census oi enumeiation hereinbefore directed to be taken.
+r,I!',+yilli be obserJed that the Constitutional Convention seemed
v .* ^ a(C1 a g];eat deal of importance to the proposition that
direct taxes should be apportioned among the several States
according to the population, because it is twice expressed in
the Constitution, and, so far as my memory serves me this is
the only thought which is twice expressed 'in the Constitution.
It is first expressed affirmatively that direct taxes shall be ap
portioned in this way, and then, apparently for fear that the
affirmative proposition would not be sufficiently strong, it is
expressed negatively that no capitation or other direct tax shall
be laid except according to this rule.
So it is seen that the Constitutional Convention laid special
stress upon this particular thing. It is insisted in this argu
ment that the only kinds of direct taxes are a capitation tax
and a land tax. I want to call attention to and put in con
trast two of these provisions of the Constitution upon that ques
tion. The order in the Constitution is not the order in which
I shall speak of them.
po?ts?andne |rc lllsShaU haV6 p0wer to lay and collect taxes> duties, >mthroughout tbe^Jnlted^States.lmpost8, and
shall be uniform
Why a.re *af es; . tbe most general term used in the clause
omitted in this limitation upon the exercise of the newerv
Taking that provision by itself, it is seen that of the four things
mentioned, three of them, namely, duties, imposts, and excises
must be laid according to the rule of uniformity Whv did
the makers of the Constitution omit the word “ ta x e s” in that
enumeration? Because they recognized that “ taxes ” had alreadv
been provided for in another part of the Constitution where
it had been declared that direct taxes should be laid according
to the rule of apportionment; and so they provided in this sec
tion that duties, imposts, and excises should be laid according
to the rule of uniformity. The conclusion, it seems to me, is
perfectly clear that, taking those provisions together, what
they mean is that taxes which do not fall within the descrint!?a of duties or imposts, or excises, are direct taxes and come
within the other rule of the Constitution.
I am not without authority on that proposition. Mr Tucker
in his work on the Constitution, first volume, page 45S, sneaking
upon that subject, says:
From these uses of the term “ taxes ” in the clauses mentioned and
" direct taxes
in the two clauses mentioned, it would seem that the
framers of the Constitution had in their minds certain forms of taxes
which they called “ direct taxes," and other forms of taxes which were
XLIV
-131
2082
CONGRESSIONA L RECORD—SENATE.
M ay D>
Mr. SUTHERLAND. My idea about that is that the word was conferred upon the Federal Congress of imposing dii’ect
“ ta x es” is the broadest and the most comprehensive word of all truces upon the citizens of the States.
fAT
the words that were used; that the word "taxes,” as I have
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Sena _
said, is generic, and includes all the varieties by which a citizen 1 from Utah how a capitation tax, apportioned upon popuk'^ ’
nia v he compelled to contribute to the support of the Government.[ counting three-fifths of the slaves, can be other than a tax
Mr. IIEYBURN. If the Senator will permit me, it will be\ the State exclusivelyV
apparent that a citizen can not be compelled to contribute to V Mr.
v
SUTHERLAND. Well, a capitation tax, of course, v ,
the support of the Government through duties, because lie may not be imposed upon the slave in the sense that the slave
perform no act, do no thing, to which a duty attaches; but as be
„„ compelled to
w lKld
uevau*Ks the
m e wave
pay IL
it,, because
slave was property. A
to taxes, he can not avoid them by anything that he can do. was simply the rule by which the amount of the tax was t ■
Those distinctions were carried all through the English law he- measured. The amount of the tax having been ascertain^
fore we adopted it. I think the Senator will find that the then it was imposed upon either the property of the State
reason why they left out “ ta x es’ in the second enumeration raised by a tax upon the heads of the various citizens of the St ■
was beeim .* it was the only one that the citizen could not avoid, f Mr. OWEN. Then I understand the Senator from Utah •'
but he co il avoid paying any ol the other duties by avoiding Fseats to the proposition that the capitation tax referred to
the transactions that carried the duty.
. . .
fourth paragraph of section 9 of Article I of the Consti.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Tho Senator may be correct about that. i tion is not a direct tax on the citizen.
''Mr.
SUTHERLAND. No. The Senator misunderstands DU
Mr. BURKETT. I wish to make a suggestion to the Senator
in connection with this question. The question was asked at if he understands that, because the Constitution itself says turn
one time In the discussion of the Constitution, in the convention it is a direct tax. It says a “ capitation or other direct tax. ^
What, are direct taxes? and it was not answered. }I hi>™
OWEN. The Constitution, Mr. President, says “ cap®'
for the Madison Papers, and I hope I can find i t. I[ call to the j tion or other direct tax,” but it does not specify whether it ‘
Senator’s attention the discussion as to what were indirect direct tax on the State or on the citizen. I call the attention
taxes. A statement was m a d e there that indirect taxes con of the Senator from Utah to the fact that a capitation tax, a
corned duties, imposts, and excises, lhere was that defimtloi direct tax on a citizen, can not be apportioned under the con- /
given of indirect taxes ««rlier in the discussion. 80 fai is I stitutional rule, and, therefore, must necessarily bo a direct t i n /
State. That xa
is u
a pi-upusiuou
proposition jI. wish
an*wePf''\
have listened to this debate, I have never heard that discussed... upon
-r».. the
~.v ~
w.~*. him to
------I have sent for the Madison Papers, and I think I can turn to i t ^ M r . SUTHERLAND. Mr. President, it was no part of
vr,, QTTrrTTT?11?r \NT) If the Senator will do me the lionoi to purpose to discuss that phase of the question; and to enter
listen t o m o u S f l t o W i what I have to say, ho will find that upon it would lead me entirely too far afield, if the Senator
will pardon me for saying so.
1 M r!'i5U RK ETT.Ut I 'a m no^'mly doing the Senator the honor, /'M r. OWEN. I beg pardon of the Senator from Utah. I did
but I am going to do so in justice to myself, because tho Sena not wish to interrupt his argument. I thought perhaps he had
considered that.
— ir-*1
tor from Idaho raised that question.
,
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. President, I am discussing this
Mr. SUTHERLAND. It has been sometimes suggested by
both the Supreme Court of the United States and by counsel tax upon the assumption that the decisions of the Supreme
appearing before that court, and upon the floor of the Senate, Court in that respect are right—that it is a tax upon the citizen
that; there may be a form of tax which is not subject to cither and not upon tho State.
I was about to say, when the Senator from Oklahoma inter
of these rules. Nobody has ever undertaken to point out what
particular subject which was liable to a tax would not come rupted me, that the language of the Constitution is “ no cap
within either the rule of apportionment or the rule of umtorm- itation or other direct tax.” It is manifest that, according t°
1,1Y ■ put in some vague, general way it has been stated tli.it per the argument made by the Senator from Texas and the Sen
haps thereSmuy 'be a form of taxation that would not come ator from Idaho, the words “ other direct tax ” meant but one
within either class. In the Pollock case (lo7 U. S., oo<) the kind of a tax, namely, a land tax. If it had been intended by
Chief Justice sneaking upon that subject, observes.
the framers of the Constitution that those words “ other direct
And Mthough thero have been from time to time intimations that ta x ” should include a land tax and nothing more, it seems to
there might ho some tax which was not; a d lr e c tta x n o r Included under me that the plain and direct way would'have been for
dtp wnriTu “ umIIpw imnosts. ntid excises, such a tax for more than
mm hundred yearn’of n ational existence lias as yet remained undiscov l’ramers of the Constitution to have said so in precise word®
ered, notwithstanding tho stress of particular circumstances has Invited to have simply said that “ no capitation or land tax shall be
thorough Investigation Into sources or revenue.
laid, except in accordance with this rule.”
If I am correct in the construction of these provisions of the
The Senator from Texas the other day in his discuss*0*1
Constitution that Imposts, duties, and excises, and those forms called attention to the language of the Articles of Oonfederm
of taxation alone, are subject to the rule of uniformity, and tion upon that subject, which provided for a contribute”;
other “ taxes,” or “ direct taxes,” are subject to the rule of ap from the several States, to be measured by the value of
portionment, let me Inquire, What becomes of a tax which is lands and improvements. So the framers of the Constitution
imposed upon tho corpus of personal property? Both the Sen were familiar with that form of expression. If they had u°
ator from Texas and the Senator from Idaho insist that the intended to vary the sense which was conveyed by that expi’e®
term “ direct taxes” shall bo confined to a land tax; that a tax sion used in the original Articles of Confederation, it is 8° ^
upon personal property is not a direct tax. Suppose a tax is what remarkable that they varied the language. If they m1'
laid upon all of the personal estate of .a citizen. That is not a not intended to include more than was included by the term
duty; it is not an impost; it is not an excise. If I am correct used in the Articles of Confederation, why is it that they did
« .
In saying and if Mr. Tucker is correct in saying that all taxes not use the same language that was used in the Articles
must bo subject to one rule or the other, it must be a direct tax. Confederation instead of using an expression which, at ie»s ”
The Constitution says that “ no capitation or other direct tax apparently seems to include very much more?
Iti
shall be laid,” and so forth.
Upon this same subject the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BobM**
A------Mr. OWEN. Mr. President-----quoted from the plan of Alexander Hamilton, which was v* ^
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yield “ taxes on land, houses, real estate, and capitation taxes ’ sh°
to the Senator from Oklahoma?
be apportioned; and the Senator argued that that was evK; .rs
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Certainly.
^ of
wliat was meant in the Constitution by the use of the
,
/ ' “'Mr. OWExN. I should like to ask the Senator from Utah if 1 “ direct tax.” The makers of the Constitution had this langua^
/ lie understands by “ a capitation and other direct tax,” a capita- of Alexander Hamilton before them. Alexander Haiuw ^
1 tion and other direct tax on the citizen or on the State ex- had used in his proposed plan these precise words: ‘ lJl
Vclusiveiy, which must be apportioned?
houses, real estate, and capitation taxes.”
, n(jed
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I heard the Senator’s argument upon
Again, I inquire if the framers of the Constitution JW00 t0
that subject the other day, aud he presented the matter with to limit the taxation subject to the rule of apportion®011
great ability and plausibility, but I am not prepared to assent to taxes on land, houses, real estate, and capitation taxes. ^
his view, i think that the language in the Constitution with ref did they pot adopt the language proposed by Mr. IIaUlilhmicb,
erence to a direct tax meant a tax levied upon the citizen, and stead of taking the general expression “ direct tax, ” t by
not a tax levied upon the State. That was tho very thing which again I say, apparently means much more than was ®ca
the framers of the Constitution were endeavoring to get awav the language of Mr. Hamilton.
. plain
mol!'
Uf° ? °n£ederatioQ tlle tax in a way was imposed
This construction of the Constitution, according to tn > tlJ(J
^>rm of 11 requisition upon tho State, but reading of its terms, it seems to me, is fully borne out
RD
si tion s
the States would not comply with the requi- history and circumstances leading up to and .accompany e
>uons. So that whole system was abandoned and the power adoption of the Constitution.
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President-----The V IC E -P RE SID E N T . Does the Senator from Utah yield
to the Senator from Iow a?
Mr. SU TH ERLAN D. Certainly.
Mr. CUMMINS. B efore the Senator passes to a new subject
I should like to know definitely whether he assents to the
distinction suggested by the senior Senator from Idaho [Mr.
H eybubn ] between a tax and a duty.
Mr. SU TH ERLAN D.
N o ; I do not, as the Senator has
Mated it. I think that the Senator accurately stated the prim i
tive meaning o f the w ord “ duty,” but I do not believe that
it was used in that restricted sense in the Constitution.
Mr. H E YB U RN . Mr. President------ The V IC E -P RE SID E N T . D oes the Senator from Utah yield
to the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. SU TH ERLAN D. I do.
Mr. HEYBURN. I think I perhaps was not explicit enough
m my statement to convey the fu ll meaning. I intended to sub
mit the proposition that a tax ean not be avoided by any act on
the part o f a subject, w hile either o f the others, im posts or du
ties, may be avoided by the subject declining to enter into the
business that carries w ith it that class o f taxation. T hat is a
distinction about which there can be no doubt.
Mr. SU TH E R LA N D . I will agree w ith the Senator to this
extent, that a direct tax does im ply the idea o f coercion.
Mr. HEYBU RN . Sovereignty.
Mr. SU TH E R LA N D . O f coercion upon the' subject w ho is to
pay the tax, while the w ord “ duty,” w hich is imposed upon a r
ticles o f consumption— —■
Mr. H E YB U RN . W hich may not be consumed.
Mr. SU TH ERLAN D. A rticles w hich may be imported.
at
H EYBU RN . Or which may not be imported.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. The citizen may pay or not, according
as he determines to use or not to use the article upon w hich the
particular duty is imposed.
1 Mr. H E YB U RN . Just a word, and then I w ill be ready to
ea\e the subject to the judgm ent o f the Senate or o f those who
may choose to consider it.
du‘ iea may bo m o ld e d by the act o f the
l *ty H‘at 1S.> ttle ,a ct o f the citizen, because he may do noth
ing that carries with it the duty. Im posts com e within the
same class exactly, as do also excises. These three, in my ju d g
ment, are distinguished from taxes because they belou,r to an
entirely different class o f burdens resting upon the 'citizen
th ere is nothing on earth that the citizen can do to avoid
taxes except to die.
Mr. SU TH E R LA N D . Then, i f I understand the Senator from
Idaho, he agrees with what I have said, namely, that by the
w ord “ tax ” in that clause o f the Constitution is meant direct
tax es; and by the w ords “ imposts, duties, and e x c is e s” are
m^ L ™ ? l rect taxes- T hat is precisely what I am contending.
Air. H EYBU RN . I w ill reply in my own time.
Mr. CUMMINS. I think the Senator from Utah w ill recogmze that that is not the suggestion made by the senior Senator
iroiii Idaho. H e did not intend to be understood as saying that
excises, duties, and im posts were the only indirect taxes that
could be levied by the Government. H e intended to say that
™
ntbe
miture o f things a duty arose out o f the Volun? Yy
A tlie Person upon whom it was imposed, and that a
‘ V mfnn n+ifrfe, r iSC ° f sovei'eiKnty im posed in an involuntary
n a y upon the persons upon whom it rests. I want to know
' M
eis ™ E R T tl A n 0mT U,tah assents
d istincU on?
, ' ' ‘ T H E R LA N D . i have stated to the Senator from
I, dabo exactly tvhat I did agree to, and I dislike to be obligee
to say that I assent to language which has been used by o th e r
when I have undertaken to put in clear language precisely whal
my own view is. The Senator can him self make the comparison
Mr. CUMMINS. W ill the Senator, then, perm it me1 to a si
one further question?
Mr. S U TH E R LA N D . Certainly.
Mr., CUMMINS. W o u ld .it make any difference in the con
stnutionality o f the statute i f the burden that is proposed to b<
placed upon incomes is called a “ d u t y ” rather than “ t a x ? ”
Mr. S U TH E R LA N D . I do not think it would make tin
slightest difference. I do not think you can change the sub
stance o f things by changing the name.
Mr. CUM MINS. Certainly in that respect I agree w ith th<
Senator from Utah, but does the Senator believe that there ar<
any indirect taxes other than those that have historically beei
classified as excises, imposts, and duties?
Mr. S U TH E R LA N D . I f I understand the Senator’ s ques
tion, I do not. I think that those three terms em brace th<
indirect taxes, and that all other taxes that do not com<
within one or the other o f those descriptions are direct taxes
Mr. H E YB U RN . Mr. President-----t
Mr. CUMMINS. Just a moment, i f the Senator from Idaho
w ill perm it me.
Then it is the Senator’ s view that those burdens w hich have
been heretofore called in various countries and in various
States “ excises, imposts, and d u ties” are the only indirect
taxes known to the law ?
Mr. SU TH E R LA N D . Or other taxes o f the same kind or
description.
Mr. CUMMINS. Precisely.
Mr. SU TH ERLAN D. I would not undertake to say that the
various countries o f the world have exhausted all the possi
bilities o f the excise and all the possibilities o f im posts and of
duties; but either those things which have heretofore been
treated as excise taxes, or impost taxes, or duties, or things o f
the same nature, constitute the indirect taxes.
Mr. CUMMINS. B ut the Senator has not yet attem pted a
definition that w ill describe the difference between indirect and
direct taxes, except to suggest that excises, imposts, and duties
are the indirect taxes. W hat is the essential difference between
a direct tax and an indirect tax?
Mr. S U TH E R LA N D . Mr. President, the Senator is asking
a question that has been answered in a very great variety o f
ways. I would not undertake to lay down a hard and fa st
definition.
Mr. H E Y B U R N . Now, Mr. President----Mr. SU TH E R LA N D . I think— if the Senator from Idaho
w ill perm it me fo r ju st a moment— that the division between
direct and indirect taxes is rather a zone than it is a lin e ; in
other words, we may put our fingers upon a particular exaction
and say this is a direct tax because it lies entirely outside o f the
zone upon one side, or we m ay put our fingers on another form
o f exaction and say this is an indirect tax because it lies entirely
outside o f the zone upon the other sid e; but within the zone
there may be m ore or less doubt as to precisely whether or not
a particular exaction is a direct or an indirect tax.
Mr. H E Y B U RN . Mr. President, I would not like to be
understood w ithin the limits suggested by the Senator from
Iow a [M r. C u m m i n s ], that there is only one class o f taxes out
side o f duties, imposts, and excises, and that that is a direct
tax. I believe that there is a class o f taxes other than duties,
imposts, and excises that is dual in character, divisible in its
purpose, and that on one side o f the- line lie direct taxes and
on the other indirect taxes, the indirect purely distinguishable
from either duties, imposts, or excises.
I do not like to
anticipate what I will perhaps feel impelled to say in regard
to the subject later, but I believe that it is within the power o f
Congress to levy a class o f taxes— strictly taxes— that are not
direct, and at a fu tu re time I w ill perhaps ask the Senate to
listen to some suggestions on that matter.
T H E H ISTO R Y LEADING U P TO FRA M ING T H E C ONSTITUTIONAL PRO V ISIO N .
Mr. SU T H E R LA N D . Now, Mr. President, I com e to the con
sideration o f the second source o f inform ation w hich I laid
down in the beginning, namely, the history and circum stances
leading up to and surrounding the adoption o f the Constitution.
Under the government o f the Confederation there w as no power
to lay or collect ta x e s ; the only power was to m ake requisitions
upon the various States.
A rticle 8 o f the original A rticles o f Confederation provided
that w ar and other expenses should be defrayed out o f a common
treasury.
T o quote the language o f the article—
Which shall he supplied by the several States, in proportion to the
value of all land, within each State, granted to or surveyed for any
person, as such land, and the buildings and improvements thereon, shall
he estimated, according to such mode as the United States in Congress
assembled shall, from time to time, direct and appoint.
This measure o f the proportion which should be exacted from
each State w as found to be utterly unsatisfactory, and Congress
in 1783 recommended to the several States that the provision
should be altered so as to provide that the common Treasury
should be—
Supplied by the several States, in proportion to the whole number of
white and other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex, and
condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and
three-fifths of all other persons, etc.
It w ill be observed that there is no provision for, and it is
not within the contemplation o f this article that the contribu
tions w hich are exacted from the States shall he raised by a
levy upon lands and im provements and houses, but only that
the value o f the lands, improvements, and houses in each State
shall be the measure o f the am ount which the State shall con
tribute. T hat measure being fou nd un satisfactory another
measure o f the amount which the State should bo com pelled to
contribute w as form ulated by the Congress, nam ely that the
am ount should be measured by the number o f population. The
2084
CONCESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
value of lands being found unsatisfactory, it. was thought that
the number of people in each State would afford a better meas
ure of the ability of the State to contribute than the value of
its land.
,,,
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me
to interrupt him?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Surely.
Mr. BAILEY. I think the Senator’s statement is not exactly
accurate. The change was mado because in that day, as in this
day, people undervalued their property for the purpose of escap
ing tiieir taxes, and it was concluded that it was possible to
ascertain with exactness the number of people, when it was
not possiblo to ascertain the exact value of the land. They
adopted it, not because the population was a more satisfactory
method of gauging these contributions, but simply because they
could make the ascertainment with exactness when counting
the people, and they had not been able to make it with exact
ness in estimating the value of land.
.
Mr SUTHERLAND The Senator from Texas simply states
in another and better way than I have stated or could state
what r intended to say. ' What I say is, that the measure
ment of the ability of the State to pay taxes by the value of its
land was found to be un satisfactory-I am not undertaking to
go into any discussion of the reason-but it was found to be un
satisfactory, and the measurement by population was adopted
as being more satisfactory.
./Mr. OWEN. Mr. President——
^
''Mr SUTHERLAND. I yield to the Senator.
Mr OWEN Would not such a tax, whether based on the
'value' of land or on population, being a requisition on the State
to be paid by the State, be necessarily a direct tax on the State
!l' m rUSETH ERLAND' Mr. President, I am not to be beguiled
into a discussion of that subject by the Senator from Oklahoma.
I said to him a little while ago that I did not agree with him
upon that proposition. I believe that the Constitution did not
contemplate a direct tax upon the States as such, but, as I
have already stated, to enter upon that subject would be entirely
afield from what I bad intended to discuss.
T IIE DEBATE IN T H E CONVENTION.
In the Constitutional Convention several Ph'ns of taxation
were submitted. Among them was the plan of Mr. 1 inckney,
the plan of Mr. Randolph, and the plan of Mr. Paterson. On
.Tuly 12 Mr Morris moved to add to the clause empowering the
legislature to vary representation according to the wealth and
number of the inhabitants a proviso ‘ that taxation shall be in
proportion to representation.” Some objection was made to this
plan iUid Mr Morris admitted the force of the objection, but
stated, that he supposed that these objections “ would be re
moved by restraining the rule to direct taxation, because,” as
be explained, “ with regard to indirect taxes on exports and
imports and on consumption, the rule would be inapplicable.”
Of course that is manifest. A duty imposed upon goods im
ported into this country obviously can not be apportioned among
tlie several States at all, while a direct tax upon the capital and
property of Individuals of the States can be apportioned with
varying degrees of fairness.
Mr. Wilson stated that he “ approved the principle, but could
not see liow it could bo carried into execution, unless restrained
to direct taxation." We are then told that Mr. Morris modified
his motion by Inserting the word “ direct,” and the provision
passed In tlio'following language:
Provided always, That direct taxation ousht to be proportioned to
representation.
After that the Constitution was so framed as to provide that
duties, imposts, and excises should be laid according to the rule
of uniformity, as I have already discussed.
Taking these circumstances and all tlie debates together, it
seems to me clear that the convention intended that every form
of taxation should be subject either to the rule of apportionment
or of uniformity.
In fixing the rule of population as the measurement for direct
taxation, I think it is apparent from a consideration of the de
bates in tbe convention itself and of those In the various state
conventions called for the purpose of ratifying the Constitu
tion, that there was no intention to limit the rule to taxes on
lands alone. I quote, first, from Mr. Madison. Mr. Madison
said :
M at IV,
the inhabitants is not an accurate measurement of tlio value of
their lands and houses, but not an accurate measure of wealtnAnd again, quoting from the debates:
He contended, however, that in the United States it was sufficiently
80 /o r the object in contemplation.
, „
Mr. Gorham said that in Massachusetts it had been found, ev
including Boston, that the most exact proportion prevailed betwt
numbers and property.”
Not—again it will be observed—between numbers and la n d e d
estates, or lands and houses and improvements, but betweei
numbers and property. What property? It is not qualified i
any way; therefore, property of every description.
Mr. IIEYBURN. Would it interrupt the Senator if I shouh
ask 1dm a question?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Not at all.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yicb
to the Senator from Idaho?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I do.
. Mr. IIEYBURN. I think there has been a failure to dis
tinguish between tangible and intangible property. The value
of real estate is not alone what it will bring as an income. U
is the value for which you can sell it, even though It brings
you no income. I have been impressed, whenever I have read
the last decision of the Supreme Court, with the idea that they
got away from that point, and that it Is an Important distin
guishing point. An income tax is a tax upon an i n t a n g ib l e
thing—a thing that may vary over night or disappear in *1
day, a thing that may come and go. It is not tlio same kind
of property as the thing from which an income may or may not
be derived. That thought has occurred to my mind many times
in considering this question.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Certainly an income from rentals, an
income from lauded estates, is not an income from an intangible
thing.
Mr. IIEYBURN. It is not an income from an intangible
thing, but it is in itself an intangible, uncertain, indefinite, and
varying thing. The house may be rented to-day and n o t r e n t e d
to-morrow.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. It may burn up.
Mr. IIEYBURN. Y es; as the Senator from Indiana suggests,
it may burn up. But I think we must distinguish between the
thing of value and the revenue which comes from it or does not
come from it, according to the circumstances. I think a direct
tax is a tax upon a thing of value, and an indirect tax is one
upon a thing that may or may not exist.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I will undertake to show a little further
along—I should be anticipating if I should discuss it now—tbnt
a tax upon the income derival from land is, in substance and
effect, a tax upon the land itself.
Mr. IIEYBURN. Mr. President, I think that that is probably
the dividing of the roads in this discussion at all times, when
ever it arises.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. But I shall not turn aside to discus*
that particular proposition now.
Again, referring to these debates, Mr. Wilson c o n t e n d e d that
numbers would be a fairly accurate measure of wealth an
ability to contribute to the public wants.
.
Again, he does not compare the numbers of inhabitants wit
the value of their landed estates, but regards it as a measur
of their wealth and ability to pay taxes.
Doctor Johnson thought that the numbers of population w»
tho best measure of wealth.
Mr. Ellsworth offered an amendment providing that the ruj®
of contribution by direct taxation should bo the number of wbw
inhabitants and three-fifths of others; and then added, to <ln°l
his language:
Until some other rule, that shall more accurately ascertain the weal^
of the several States, can be devised and adopted by the legislature-
I pause to ask here, Mr. President, If it had been intended by
the members of that convention that the term “ direct tax
should be confined to a land tax, why do they constantly say u, '
the rule of population is the best rule by which to ascertain j
wealth of these states, the property in these States, the aow
of these Slates to contribute to the General Treasury?
Mr. IIEYBURN. Mr. President, I think the Senator is P” "
ing over Mr. Franklin’s second suggestion as of less importan >
when, as a matter of fact, it was of first importance. The s
^
Future contributions, It seemed to be understood on all hands, would jects referred to by Mr. Franklin in tbe second paragraph
be principally levied on Imports and exports.
those that are directly before us for consideration. Wha t
TTiis, by tbe way, was before the provision in the Constitution you tax? He suggests that the per capita tax Is the si ^
forbidding export duties had been adopted,
basis until something else is discovered that may be t,■m i T u , on
t5mt lie would admit that the number of What is it that you tax? You tax the house; you do no ^
J i f f ! 1” was not an accurate measure of wealth. Now, ob- tho rent that may come from it. You tax the land; you c
sc tu , it Is not tbe language of Mr. Madison that tbe number of tax that which may be derived from it as profit.
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
2085
Mr. SUTHERLAND. No; either I do not interpret correctly would likely have resulted, because it covered a wide range of
what Mr. Ellsworth says, or the Senator does not. What he territory, and it would have taken some time to define it.
Mr. HEYBURN. Mr. President-----says is that the rule of contribution by direct taxation should
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yield
be the number of population, until some other rule------■
to the senior Senator from Idaho?
Mr. HEYBURN. Yes; “ until.”
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Yes.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Until some other rule that shall more
Mr. HEYBURN. Blackstone’s Commentaries were the latest
accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States shall be
legal
publication at the time of the sitting of the Constitutional
found.
Convention. Mr. Blackstone defines in very explicit language
Mr. IIEYBURN. Yes.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. He is not talking about the subjects of what are direct taxes, and limits them to per capita and land
I presume the framers of the Constitution took it for
taxation; he is talking about the rule by which it is proposed taxes.
granted that a principle that was so well established and so
to measure the ability of the inhabitants of the State to pay generally recognized was sufficient, and, perhaps, settled this
the tax.
question by an aside, one to the other, rather than by a public
Mr. HEYBURN. Is that all of that?
discussion.
.
, ,,
J_.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. No.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. It may have been, at the time Mr.
Mr. HEYBURN. W ill you not read Mr. Franklin’s state Blackstone wrote, that the only form of direct taxation which
ment?
was in use in England was that form to which the Senator has
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Then he proceeds:
directed attention. But neither Mr. Blackstone nor any other
. The sum allotted to a State may be levied without difficulty according writer upon English law ever intended to say that direct taxes
to the plan used by the State in raising its own supplies.
were confined, at all times and under all circumstances, to capi
First of all, he discusses the rule of measuring the amount of tation and land taxes.
,
.
the contribution, and then he discusses the method by which it
Mr. HEYBURN. Mr. President, a very familiar rule of in
shall be raised; and he says, w ith reference to the latter part terpreting statutes is that of taking into consideration the ori
of it:
gin of the principle which was being adopted and formulated by
The sum allotted to a State may be levied without difficulty according the party who was enacting a law or making a constitution;
the plan used by the State in raising its own supplies.
and the very knowledge in the minds of the makers of the
Mr. HEYBURN. Did not the Senator pass over Mr. Frank Constitution that this term had been interpreted by the English
law writer of most distinction at that time would he accepted
lin’s statement in reading Mr. Ellsworth’s?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. No; I have not Mr. Franklin’s state by them as we accept the decisions of- the supreme courts of
the States from which we take statutes.
.
ment at all.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. The Senator from Idaho w ill agree
Mr. HEYBURN. I had it in my mind, and therefore may
with me that the English Parliament and the English courts
myself have confused it with Mr. Ellsworth’s statement.
have some fam iliarity with Mr. Blackstone and the various
Mr. SUTHERLAND. It is reported in these debates that Mr. S e ^ u p o n S g S a i ; and the English Parliament and the
King upon one occasion asked what w as the precise meaning English courts, having all those authorities before them, and
of “ direct taxation; ” and Mr. Madison informs us that no one considering all of those authorities, have uniformly held that
answered. I suggested to the Senator from Idaho when he
wras upon liis feet the other day that if the question had been an income tax is a direct tax.
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-----susceptible of as simple an answer as has been attempted to be
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yield
made by some of the decisions of the Supreme Court and by
Senators upon this floor, it is a little remarkable that somebody to the junior Senator from Idaho?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Certainly.
,,
.
^ „
did not answer it.
Mr. BORAH. They never held that, did they pnor to the
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-----Mr. SUTHERLAND. Just a moment. Evidently it chal adoption of the Constitution of the United States •
\rr SUTHERLAND. No; because prior to the adoption of
lenged the attention of Mr. Madison, because he took pains to
the Constitution of the United States no income tax had been
observe and record the fact that no one answered.
imposed;
and Mr. Blackstone could not have spoken of an In
According to the contention made here, a direct tax is only come tax at
the time he wrote, because if he had he would hav e
a capitation tax or a land tax. I f it had been understood by spoken
of something that did not exist. But the English Parthe members of that convention in that way, is it not remark liament and the English judges interpreted Mi. Blackstone s
able that somebody did not say “A direct tax is simply a
capitation tax or a tax on land ?” No one answered the ques language defining direct taxes in a different manner from that
the Senator from Idaho.
tion, however, because no one in the convention could formulate of Mr.
IIEYBURN. Mr. President, there^ w as no occasion for
in his own mind at the moment a precise definition; and no the English courts or the English Parliament to “ shy off ”
one undertook to formulate it, although, as the debates show from the question of what w a s’and what was not direct taxaboth there and elsewhere, the general nature of a direct tax tion, because there was no constitutional 1imitation that govwas perfectly understood.
erned the English Parliament in regard to levying a certain
Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah sdeld kind of tax or that limited them in any way.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. No; but there were evidently other
to the junior Senator from Idaho?
j considerations which made it important for the English Parlia
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I do.
Mr. BORAII. Mr. President, I presume the Senator from ment and the English courts to assign the income tax to its
Utah w ill concede that the framers of the Constitution recog i proper classification; and they assigned it to the class of direct
nized this matter of taxation as one of the most important sub I taxes, and not to the class of indirect taxes, with all the in
jects with which they had to deal, and one with which they had formation before them from Blackstone and from the other
to deal with the utmost accuracy. Does the Senator from'Utah English writers that the Senator from Idaho has before him.
Luther Martin said:
believe that after the attention of the makers of the Constitu
taxation should not he used but in cases of absolute necessity,
tion was called to the meaning of the word “ direct ” they still andD irect
then the States w ill be the best judges -of the mode.
proceeded to put into the Constitution a term the meaning of
Finally, on September 14, 3787, the provision in section 0 of
which they did not understand? Does the Senator mean to say
that after their attention had been specifically directed to the I Article I, “ No capitation tax shall be laid, unless,” etc., being
|
under
consideration, Mr. Read moved to insert after “ capitamatter, and they did not know, they still continued to insert in I tio n ” the
words “ or other direct tax.”
the Constitution a phrase the meaning of which they did not
He was afraid that some liberty might otherwise he taken to saddle
understand?
the States w ith a readjustment by this rule of past requisitions of
Mr. SUTHERLAND. No; I have not so said, Mr. Presi Congress, and that his amendment, by giving another cast to tho
tQe
dent. I have said that the members of the Constitutional Con meaning, would take away the pretext.
And in that form it was carried.
'— "
vention did understand, but that they were not able to formu
late at the moment a precise definition. My contention is that ''M r . OWEN. I wish to call the attention of the Senator from
the framers of the Constitution understood by “ direct ta x e s” Utah to the report of Luther Martin to the legislature of Mary
taxes upon those subjects which were made the subject of direct land, in which he expressly stated that this very Constitution
taxation in the various States at the time the Constitution was authorized the Congress to lay direct taxes on the citizen in
framed. As those subjects differed in various States, they could every case.
not have undertaken to make an enumeration of them ; and they ' Mr- SUTHERLAND. I have the report and I'sh all read lronT
were unable, as I said, to formulate a precise definition.
I it later on in my remarks.
Mr. BORAH. In other words, if the question had been asked,
Now, I want to call attention to the fact that in the debates
“ What is a d u ty?” or “ What is an excise?” the same silence of the Constitutional Convention there is no hint or suggestion
I
2086
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
that direct taxes should be confined to capitation and land taxes,
although the qu estion was asked what was meant. The discus
sion assumed rather a wide range, but nowhere in the debates
was it ever suggested that the tax should be confined to a land
lax and a capitation tax.
On the contrary, the whole debate from beginning to end
indicates that in the minds of the majority population was con
sidered the fair measure, and that landed estates were not
considered the fair measure of the ability of the various States
to contribute, but that wealth and property generally should be
the subjects from which the taxes should be gathered. Popula
tion was regarded as the measure of the amount, and the amount
itself realized by taxing the wealth and property of the States,
and not their landed estates only.
Mr. HEYBURN. I desire to ask the Senator if it is not ap
parent upon the face of the proceedings that the Constitutional
Convention did not get away frdm the idea of a central govern
ment apportioning and levying taxes, for the State to collect
and turn in, until almost the last days of the convention? It
had been accustomed to it under the articles, and it was only
in the latter days of the convention that it adopted the present
system, which entirely eliminated the idea of imposing a tax
upon the State, to be accounted for to the General Government.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. It was insisted by some that the old
plan should be adhered to.
DEBATES IN T H E STATE CONVENTIONS.
I now come to a brief discussion of the debates and proceed
ings in iIn- various state conventions upon the question of the
ratification of the Constitution. I shall submit that from a con
sideration of the various things that were said by the members
of these conventions that it. was not understood by any of
them that the words “ direct ta x ” in the Constitution were
used in this restricted sense.
Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, writing to the governor
of Connecticut, September 26, 1787, say:
if la nrobable tlmt the principal branch of revenue will be duties on
im p o r tsW h a t may be necessary to bo raised by direct taxation Is to
«’ i portioned on the several States, according to the number of their
. nna although Congress may raise the money by their own
authority,3If ^necessary, yet that authority need not bo exercised If
each Stait'o will furnish Its quota.
In the Massachusetts convention Judge .Dana, after urging
the necessity of Congress being vested with the power to levy
direct taxes, said:
It was not to lie supposed that they would levy such unless the
Impost and excise should he found insufficient in case of a war.
M at 17,
He said that all nations had seen the necessity and propriety
of raising a revenue by indirect taxation—by duties upon ai»cles of consumption.
In the New York convention Chancellor Livingston, a
discussing the proposed amendment, that no excise sbouiu
laid on the manufactures of the United States, said:
But if you impose upon the Union all the burdens and take fm®
them a principal resource, what will they do when the imposts dm
0
and the expenses of government increase? Why, they must
recourse to direct taxes; that is, taxes on land and specific duties.
Mr. HEYBURN. What does he mean by that other expieS
sion?
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I do not know precisely what he meant
but I am citing it for the purpose of showing that in his nn
the direct tax extended to something beyond the tax on land.
Mr. HEYBURN. What does ho name it?
,
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Specific duties, he calls it. I think
ail probability he did not use a liappy phrase, but evidently n®
believed that under the Constitution direct taxes were not con
fined to a land tax, but extended to something else.
Mr. Jay, discussing the proposed amendment, that direct taxes
should not be levied until requisitions had first been made, said •
It ought to be considered that direct taxes were of two kinds, fCJA
oral and specific. With respect to tho latter, the objection could n
apply. The National Government would, without doubt, usually u
brace those objects which were uniform throughout tho States.
Not that under the Constitution they were confined to such
objects, but that, considering the expediency of the matter,
they would carry out the constitutional provisions so as to tax
only such objects as were uniform throughout the States.
In the Virginia convention Mr. Madison, answering the ob
jection that 10 men deputed from that State, and others in pro
portion from other States, would not be able to adjust direct
taxes so as to accommodate the various citizens in 13 States,
said:
Could not 10 intelligent men, chosen from 10 districts from this State,
lay direct taxes on a few objects in the most judicious manner?
If these direct taxes under the Constitution were confined to
land, what need of 10 men to adjust the direct taxes? What
need of 10 men to “ lay direct taxes on a few objects in the most
judicious manner ” if direct taxes meant only a tax upon land"
Again, he said:
There is a proportion to he laid on each State, according to its poPtt‘
latlon—
Now, mark this—
The most proper articles will be selected in each State. If on?.i|!.
Clearly indicating that in the mind of that distinguished tide
in any State should be deficient, it will he laid on another artic* ■
gentleman tin- line of division was between imposts and excises
Again clearly indicating that it was not in his mind that the
and that character of tax upon the one side and direct taxes
direct tax was confined to land, but that it would ho laid in t '
upon the other.
various States upon the most proper articles, and if one art c
Mr. Sedgwick, commenting upon the same subject, said:
Congress would necessarily take that which was easiest to the should bo deficient in any State, it would be laid upon anoth
people; the first would he impost, the next excise, and a direct tax will article.
lie the hist; for, * * * drawing money from the people by direct
Mr. HEYBURN. Would the Senator consider an intangijj1®
taxes being difficult and uncertain, it would he the last source of reve
sum to be derived or not to be derived as an income, as an n
nue applied to by a wise legislature.
tide within the meaning of the suggestion or expression ox *
In his mind, evidently, the Impost and excise included the
Jay?
„ vf»s
forms of Indirect taxation; all others were direct taxes.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. Incomes were taxed. Direct tax®
Mr. Gobe understood the m atter In the same way. He speaks
were
imposed
upon
incomes
in
one
or
two
of
the
States.
„
of the imposts and excises being sufficient for the purposes of
Mr. HEYBURN. Would it come within that definition oi »
government in times of peace, but in time of war requisitions
article?
must be made to supply the deficiencies of this fund.
as
Mr. SUTHERLAND. It would come within that term
Mr. Pierce called attention to the fact that gentlemen in dif
used
by
Mr.
Madison----ferent parts of the House lmd agreed that Congress would not
Mr. HEYBURN. I think that Mr. Jay
lay direct taxes except in case of war, for that—
til iso’1
Mr. SUTHERLAND (continuing). As used by Mr. Mac
To defray the exigencies of peace the impost and excise would he
, ;s
sufficient; and, as that mode of taxation would bo the most expedient in the Virginia convention.
and productive, it would undoubtedly be adopted.
Mr. BORAH. I presume, perhaps, the Senator from Utah ot
going
to
reach
that
subject.
I
do
not
know
whether
he
1
He went on to say, however—
But, Mr. President, if Congress had the power of direct taxes, in the not. But does not the argument which the Senator is ll0'v 0lpe
manner proscribed in this section, I fear we shall have that mode of suing reason as strongly against an inheritance tax as an xn
taxation adopted in preference to imposts and excises.
tax?
. , +hP inI think tbe^ {
lb- was evidently against the system of direct taxation en
Mr. SUTHERLAND. I think it does not. "
tirely, but in his mind the contrast was between imposts and heritance tax proceeds upon an entirely different theory. p0t
excises, which he regarded as indirect taxes, and all other undertook to point out the other day, an inheritance tax guC.
kinds of luxes, which he regarded as direct taxes.
imposed upon property. It is imposed upon the right to ^ ,g
In the Connecticut convention Oliver Ellsworth discussed the ceed. It is imposed upon the devolution of the property., ipV
matter at some length. He first discussed the objection to the imposed in precisely the same way that a stamp duty
clause, that it extended to all the objects of taxation.
posed upon a deed by which we transfer a piece of land*
to
Gentlemen in that convention bad insisted that the power con
Mr. BORAH. Does the Senator contend that the 1A(,
ferred was altogether too broad; that it should have been inherit property is not an article within the meaning
limited. But Ellsworth pointed out that while the power had phrase?
ticie
boon given to Congress to levy taxes upon all subjects of taxa
Mr. SUTHERLAND, I contend that it is not an ar
tion, it did not extend to all exclusively.
within
1I'll 111 the
U1U llictlilli
meaning U
of
JL that
llltl L phrase.
piildbci
_ ■fnX oh
Mr. BOItAH. Does the Senator contend that the
^ to
n0i ??y that Congress should have all these sources of
the right to inherit is any more than the tax on the »
»im Z y
the states” ’ bUt
“ CeI,“ ”5 ,he t o w t - receive an income from the property?
1909
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
The object and aim then of these long speeches which are
as able as any ever delivered at any time in this body are to
have the Senate reverse the Supreme Court. It is better when
a decision of the court of last resort is against the judgment of
counsel to present to the public what the counsel would have
said if he had been a judge than to adopt the remedy which
Judge Grover, of our New York court of appeals, said was the
only one left tor the defeated attorneys and that was to go
down to the tavern and curse the court. One Senator wishes
distinctly to challenge the Supreme Court with the idea that
the argument and decision in the Pollock case will be reversed.
Another Senator wishes to have it introduced as a principle in
our political economy, even if the tariff is to be reduced in order
that there may not be an excess of income over expenditures.
. Unless, as in war times, there is an absolute necessity for an
income tax, it is the most direct possible attack upon the pro
tective system. The only way in which the surplus revenues it
would produce, and which are not now needed, could be taken
care of, would be either a horizontal reduction of the tariff to
hrmg the revenues down to the expenditures or else to enter
upon a bacchanalian saturnalia of extravagance.
No one has been able to refute the conclusions of the Finance
Committee that the bill under discussion will yield several
Millions in excess of expenditures. It is claimed that the
income tax will produce between sixty and eighty millions of
dollars annually. This would create a dangerous surplus and
impose a burden for no other purpose than to establish a
theory. A theory which will cost the taxpayers of the country,
and, in the analysis of distribution, all the people, $80,000,000
W’hich the Government does not need and for which it has no
use, is the most expensive educational propaganda ever ex
ploited. It has been suggested by its advocates that the tariff
could be reduced to meet the excess caused by the income tax,
but a reduction would lead to larger importations and greater
revenues and at the same time take our American market from
our own workers and give it to their foreign competitors. On
the other hand, if a prohibitory tariff was adopted to decrease
customs revenues, that would defeat the Republican doctrine of
competdion with protection and create monopolies.
1S °Ue P°int.which strikes me in the question as to whether
the fathers in forming the Constitution intended that the clause
providing that direct taxes should be apportioned among the
States according to population referred only to revenue from
land and not income from personal property. The Constitution
was a compromise between the large and populous and the
small and sparsely populated States. The small States de
manded that in some way they should be protected. The de
vice to protect them was that, regardless of their population
each State should have in the Senate practically two ambas
sadors with equal vote and equal power. There was as great
disparity then as there is now between the States of large
population and those of smaller population. The taxing power
and its destructive possibilities were thoroughly understood,
and the great States of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Georgia never intended that they should be outvoted and made
to bear undue burdens because of the votes in the Senate of
the smaller States. There are 15 States with 30 Senators in
tins body whose aggregate population differs only a few thousand
J” at of the single State of New York with two Senators.
New York has one-seventh of the property of the countrv It
n
0f th0 population. y S ; under an i S c S ’tax!
it would pay 33 per cent of the burdens of the Government It
is absurd to suppose that with the States rights views that existed among the statesmen of the formative period and in the
Constitutions Convention they ever intended that anv system
should prevaii which would distribute so unequally the burdens
of the Government among the various States.
There is another view which strikes me very forcibly and
which has not been presented. The time has come to draw
the line between the sources of revenue for the Federal Govern
ment and those which shall be left with the States. The
led eral Government has unlimited opportunities for revenue
through the customs and by internal-revenue taxation of al
most limitless varieties and by other methods. The States
must deal directly with their people. I was talking a few days
since with the Hon. Edwin A. Merritt, chairman of the committee on ways and means of the lower house of the New York
legislature, who expressed alarm at the inheritance and income
taxes being absorbed by the Federal Government. The expenses
of the States, with the public improvements which have become
necessary by the extraordinary development of the last quarter
of a century, are increasing in geometric ratio.
When I was chairman of the committee on ways and means
in the lower house of the New York legislature, forty-six years
ago, a tax levy of $8,000,000 would have led to a political revo
lution. The tax levy this year is thirty-seven millions, and it
2103
has increased from twenty-two to thirty-seven within the last
decade. There was levied in the State of New York in 1907
by direct taxes—that is, city, village, county, and town—$180,942,341.27, and by indirect tax, $32,339,707.49, making a total
of direct and indirect taxes of $213,282,048.76. A direct tax
for State purposes has been abolished in our State. The State
government is carried on by indirect taxation. This came be
cause of the enormous burdens of local taxation, amounting to
$181,000,000 a year. Our indirect taxation comes from taxes on
corporations, organization of corporations, inheritances, trans
fers of stock, traffic in liquor, mortgages, and racing associa
tions, according to the following table:
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
Tax
on
on
on
on
on
on
on
corporations_________________________________ $8, 581, 223. 44
organizations of corporations------------------------391, 423. 18
inheritance__________________________________ 5, 435, 394. 97
transfer of stock____________________________ 5, 575, 986. 64
traffic in liquor________________
9, 697, 504. 24
mortgages___________________________________ 2, 442, 249. 73
racing associations__________________________
215, 925. 29
Total _______________________________________
32, 339, 707. 49
It is evident from this that, with the budget five millions
more than the amount raised from these sources last year, the
State must soon find other sources of revenue. Several States
have already adopted an income tax. No one would advocate
that there should be double taxation by the General Govern
ment and by the States, for the burden would be intolerable.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is a fair claim on behalf of
the States that this direct contact with their citizens by inherit
ance and income taxes should be left to their administration.
My colleague, Senator R oot, clearly and ably answered the
question the other day as to whether the property owners bore
a substantial part of the burdens of the Government by proving
what they paid and its percentage in the country as a whole.
This New York tax levy, I think, is a close and up-to-date
illustration of the same point from our own State. I know from
personal experience with the estates for which I am counsel
that real estate located in the best parts of New York City
pay to-day double the taxes which they did eight years ago
and without any increase in rents. The effect of this is that
the income from real estate in New York is nearer 3 than 4
per cent.
The taxes on railroads in the State of New York are first
upon their real estate, at full value, in the several towns, then
a franchise tax, then a tax upon capital stock, then a tax upon
bonded debt, gross earnings, and dividends. In the case of the
New York railroads which pay dividends, this amounts to over
15 per cent of their net income. Of course this is an assessment
upon the income of the stockholders to that amount.
The income and expenditures of the Government can be cal
culated for a series of years to come with almost mathematical
certainty. I have heard no criticism which successfully con
troverts the conclusions of the Ways and Means Committee of
the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate. Includ
ing pensions, 55 per cent of our total expenditure is on account
of war. Expenditures are not'likely to increase as fast as
revenues, and there will necessarily come in the course of
nature, now that forty-four years have passed since the close
of the civil war, an annual decrease in pension appropriations.
The civil expenditures are entirely in administrative control.
All European nations are burdened with gigantic national
debts. These debts are the inheritances of great and little wars.
Our national debt has been so reduced since the civil war that it
is a negligible quantity compared with our resources. We should
enlarge the national debt, not for war but for the most benefi
cent purposes of peace, if we are to enter upon a proper policy.
We have begun on the right course in the Panama Canal by
borrowing the money for its construction. It is proper that
posterity should bear their proportion of a burden of which
they are to be the principal beneficiaries. If wre enter upon,
as we will in the future, an intelligent and thoroughly prepared
scheme of inland waterways, that also should be done by the
issue of long-time bonds, for posterity again will be the benefi
ciaries and ought to bear their share of the burden.
We are all in receipt of letters and resolutions of commercial
bodies in reference to the creation of a permanent tariff com
mission. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. B everidge ] and the
Senator from Nevada [Mr. N e w l a n d s ] have ably and elo
quently presented the affirmative of that proposition. They base
their argument largely upon the success of the Interstate Com
merce Commission; but there is no analogy between the duties
performed by and the obligations which rest on the Interstate
Commerce Commission and those which would devolve on a per
manent tariff body. It is the nature of a commission to seek to
enlarge its powers and to exploit its beneficence. A permanont
tariff commission, with a permanent lobby r e p r e s e n t i n g t A
2,000 items in the tariff bill and backed by the influence of the
'senators nnd Members from tbe States where these particular
inXstrles are located, would keep alive what the country most
deprecates and most fe a r s-a l>en,etvml t a n ^ ^ a n g . Pass
unnU4 i„vv nnicklv nnd ndjourn is wfaftt tlic countiy warns.
I believe in the scheme outlined by our Committee on Finance
i ueiicvc .
vnprts of tlie Government, who are famllkV with “ very phase of this question and in constant touch with
its administration, a body within the existing departments which
can inform the President, Congress, and the becretaiy of the
of the inequalities as they arise in the practical applli t i m <ff t irilf duties so that without agitation, without an
eternal tariff war and a perpetual tariff lobby, with all that
eternal tain
,
f business, an effective and noiseless
5 3 neryt
t e S tom an cally solving problems as they
mdse Such a commission would meet the criticisms upon the
n Waiilt? of the law and the mistakes in its administration,
M
I Z e soab ly presented in the speech of the senior Sena tTrn S S d i n the papers of this morning that William .7 Bryan
1 iiotHui m t 1 1
f \i inuesota, deplored yesterday the
sltuatlon^'f *theJKepiiWlcan party. They said that if this tariff
CftUr
years from now and the
cratic
H S S to follow four years from now. The
,senat(« and. t h e 1
d< y
have been caught after tin; mantears which they shea s
lag8 bottle, and preserved in the
ner of f ® / tC s S sinIan Institution. I am sorry for the
archives of the
household who are lamenting
f f i K S n t S r a K e w Iho Impending ruin which they are so
S ,.f,n will follow if they fail to have their way. I say to our,
distinguished Democratic sympathizers with Hamlet to th
hl8 father, “ Best, rest, perturbed spirit.
Mi- President the country wants speedy action upon this sub1ec
In all the phenomenal times of prosperity of the past
J
I n , oni 'il the present in its opportunities and its
S S r t S S e T o n tr r e r a to r Important conduction nro held
promise.
merchants are depleted, the storehouses
>*P, the »tocks of the merchants m
Qn Mnd Mve
of the umuut*1^
’
production undertaken for fear of
been used up, ami no new i
,
the result of the a<
attuched to the car of progress and
The nipatient
^ .(h
hecatise of their improsperity aie h
)h(i Marathon race of production and
patience to entei
Qf artle8 jn power depends upon the
development. II
<
country. If because of this bill,
effect of their no b 1
a hiw we enter, as I believe we will,
when perfected, he
" ^gjn„ jn its beneficent results that
upon another decade S’
tariff) popularity will follow
p r o w ^ d t t o purty can confidently rely upon t ie Judgment
5
POWER OF TAXATION AN
INHERENT ATTRIBUTE OF SOVEREIGNTY.
United States: Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. (U. S.), 449 I, ^ 0Ivheat.
Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. (U. S.), 514; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4
(U. 8.), 310; North Missouri It. Co. v. Maguire, 20 Wall. (U.
46; Wheeling, etc., Transpt. Co. v. Wheeling. 0!) U. 8., 273.
Florida : Young v. Thomas, 17 Fla., 171; 35 Am. Rep., 33.
Illinois: Porter v. Rockford, etc., It. Co., 70 111., 501.
Iow a: Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 28; 1 Am. Itep., 215; Stewa
Polk County, 30 Iowa, 9 ; 1 Am. Itep., 238.
. An
Kentucky: Louisville, etc., It. Co. v. Com., 10 Bush (Ivy.),
Maine: Allen v. .lay, 00 Me., 128; 11 Am. Rep,, 185.
Missouri: Glasgow v. Itowse. 43 Mo., 479.
Nebraska: Tillotson v. Small, 13 Nebr., 202.
Nevada: Iix p. Itoblnson, 12 Nev., 263; 28 Am. Itep.,,704.
32
New Jersey : State v. Jackson, 31 N. J. L., 181); State v. Path >
^New^York’: Guilford v. Chenango County, 13 N. Y., 143; Clarke t<
Rochester, 24 Barb. (N. Y.), 446.
„qo
Ohio: Board of Education v. McLandsborough, 30 Ohio St., “’’t v ,,
Pennsylvania: Com. v. Mann, 5 W. & S. (Pa.), 410; Kirby v. bnavv’
10 Pa. fet„ 258.
South Carolina: IOx p. Lynch, 10 S. C., 37.
T exas: Clegg v. State, 42 Tex., 008.
_
Virginia: Eyre v. Jacob, 14 Gratt (Va.), 422; 73 A im Dec., " O B .
Wisconsin: Knowlton v. Itock County, 0 Wis., 418; Wisconsin
U. Co. v. Taylor County, 52 Wis., 53.
. ,,rcesThe sovereign right to levy and collect taxes grows out of tl"'.ii,erty
sltles of Government—an urgent necessity, which admits no pi°h aj
in the citizen while It remains unsatisfied. The right to tax is co '
with all governments. It springs out of organization of the go
ment. All property is a pledge to pay the necessary debts and, expto a
of government. (Parham v. Justice, 9 Ga., 352. See also Ihllade p
v. Tryon, 35 Pa. St., 401, in which it was said that every man no
ids. property subject to the taxing power.)
'
s Mr. OWEN. I ask further authority to introduce in tn®
Record th e authorities bearing upon the proposition that t n -
taxing power of the United States is unlimited unless restricts
by the Constitution.
ia
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without objection, the request «
granted.
The authorities referred to are as follow s:
TAXING POWER UNLIM ITED UNLESS RESTRICTED BY CONSTITUTION.
United Stales: Weston v. Charleston 2 Pet (U. S.), 449 ; Provlden|,e
Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 5 1 4 ; Lane County « Oregon, 7 Wall
(II S ) 77- Stale 'Tax on Foreign-lmld Bonds, 15 Wall. (U. S.),
’
North Missouri It. Co. t>. Maguire, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 0 2 ; Klrtiand ^
Hotchkiss, 100 U. S„ 497; Ilagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, V
TJ s , 709; Railroad Tax Case, 8 Suwy. (U. b.), 248, lo bed. w t
731 : Forbes v. Grncey, 0 Fed. Cas., No. 4924
California: Mackey v. San Francisco ,1 1 3 Cal., 399
20l J
Colorado: Hall v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 24 Col,, ^
05liim oist: P o?ter"R ockford, etc., It. Co., 70 111,, 501; Greenleaf «•
Board of Review, 184 111., 220; 75 Am. St. Rep. 108.
Kansas: Newton v . Atchinson 31 Kan., 153: 47 Am. Bw., 487.
Kentucky: Lexington v. McQuillan, 9 Dana (Ivy.), 510; 35 Am. w
159; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Com., 81 Ivy., 500.
Louisiana: Second Municipality v. Duncan, 2 La. Ann., 183.
Maine: State v. Western Union Tel. Co 73 Me., 520.
Bep„
New Hampshire: Berry v. Windham, 59 N. II., 288; 47 Am.
S%S52S
«!
(li'rct't taxes referred to in that instrument, limiting
I States the direct taxes■
Jay and colloct taxes, reiated
^ n ^ t o d liS 't a x e s 'w o n ‘the States of the United States and
aione t° direct 1
tJe citizens. I desire to ask the in'}° i 0 ' f if,o senate for a few moments only, that I may
submit a few authorities with regard to that matter, in addir , to whnt T bn VP Stated heretofore. I shall not take the
of the Senate to go into any elaborate discussion of this
matter. I shall dispose of it in a very few minutes, so far as
mv comments are concerned.
The authority which was given to Congress by section 8 of
Article I of the Constitution was the authority to lay and coltect taxes,” not to lay and collect duties, imposts and excises
which should he uniform, but “ to lay and collect taxes,” as
well as duties, Imposts, and excises, for all that that means
m l th e r e w S no body of .non in tUo world more cnpnble of
'
nine the value of the omission of an adjective or of
1im i g word than was the Constitutional Convention which
i w th a tg r ea t instrument. They did not limit the word
‘ taxes.” They said that Congress should have the right to lay
and collect tuxes; and that meant tuxes direct and taxes indi
rect, direct taxes on the United States ns component parts of
the preceding Confederacy and of the succeeding Union; it
meant ns well direct and Indirect tuxes on the citizen. And I
wish to again cull the attention of the Senate to the proof which
1 offered as to this proper interpretation out of the debates of
the Constitutional Convention, which I shall not here repeat.
I want to call the attention of the Senate to the authorities,i
and, without reading them, I ask permission to insert in the;
Record the authorities to show that the power of taxation is
an Inherent attribute of the sovereignty of the United States,
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without objection, the request will
be granted. The Chair hears none.
The authorities referred to are as follows:
2°N ow Jersey: Rudderow v. State, 81 N. J., L. 512; Standard Uudergroumi Cable Company v. Attorney-General, 40 N. J., Lq. 2 /o,
StNovvPYork :’ Chenango Bank v. Brown, 20 N. Y., 407 ; Pe°P'(! ^ •fjs’i
40 N Y.. 401; People v. Home Insurance Company, 92 N. *•> N-Cw
Lawton v. Steele, 119 N. V .,232, 10 Am., St. Rep.. 8L3; Asto v(
York 37 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 500; People v. Molloy, 35 N. Y., App.
130, affirmed 101 N. Y., 021.
Oregon: Crawford v. Linn County, 11 Oregon, 488.
PalacO
Pennsylvania: Kirby v. Shaw, 19 Pa. St., 200; Pullmans
Car Company i>. Com., 107 Pa. St., 155.
, rn4, 87
Tennessee: South Nashville Street Railway Company v. Morrow,
*e,rexas: ^Hutcheson v. Storrie (Tex. Civ. App,, 1898), 48 S. W. Ile£>'’
789.
Virginia: Com. v. Maury, 82 Va., 888.
West Virginia: State v. Sponaugle, 45 W. Va., 419.
isin : State v. Thorne, 112 Wis., 81.
___ to
„ tax
.... ” says
...
Justice Marshall, “ involves
power
power to destroy;” that is, by the levy of a tax equal i b ^ w i i e a t
the value of the property taxed. (McCulloch v. Maryland, a
^Taxation is an incident of sovereign power which acknowledges 9°
limits except the discretion of those who use it, unless it be as
neral
obiccts of taxation which have been withdrawn from the 13power. (Com. v. Mann., 5 W. & S. (Pa.), 416.)
n & r . OWEN. Mr. President, the income tax has heretoi
[always been defended on the ground that it is an indirect *'
T hold that that defense is unnecessary, and dangerously, w
besides. And without undertaking to pass any judgment ' ,
regard to that, I do say that the Constitution of the 11111 d
States, in the only limitation upon the taxing power imP"
upon Congress, where reference was made to direct ta*"
meant, and necessarily meant, direct taxation upon the
.ty
and did not mean, and can not by any imagination or ingA' tlon
lie made to mean, a direct tax upon the citizen. The Hm‘l taX
In clause 4, section 0, that “ no capitation or other direo
shall be paid unless apportioned,” necessarily means a euro
upon the States, because you can not lay a capitation tax
>
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
the citizen under the constitutional apportionment. You can
lay a poll tax upon the citizen, but the capitation tax, under
the constitutional rule of apportionment, was a gross amount
fixed by population—men, women, and children, the deaf, the
dumb, the blind, sane and insane, and three-fifths of the slaves—
and apportioned to the several States. The direct tax limited
in this clause likewise was exclusively a direct tax on the
States, which alone could be apportioned under the constitu
tional rule, and since the direct tax on the citizen could not be
apportioned, it could not have been referred to in this clause
requiring the apportionment of such direct tax. A duty, impost,
or excise may be either a direct tax on the citizen or indirect,
depending on whether the payee is the immediate consumer. I
l>ay a duty of 10 cents on a few cigars I smoke; it is a direct
tax. I pay $ioo tax on cigars I sell to my customers, charging
each his pro ra ta ; the tax or duty collected is indirect in rela
tion to them.
Congress interpreted the limited right of a “ direct t a x ” on
the states in its immediate acts after the adoption of the Con
stitution. The act of 1798, the act of 1813, and the act of 1815,
declared in the most specific terms that “ a direct tax ” is laid
upon the United States—not upon a citizen—to be apportioned
under the constitutional rule. Let me see you apportion a capi
tation tax in any other -way than among the several States.
Not only must a capitation tax of necessity be held to mean a
tax upon the States in gross, but the other “ direct taxes ” re
ferred to in the same sentence which are required to be appor
tioned can not be apportioned in any other way except upon the
States. The meaning of that clause is, direct taxes on the
States and on nothing but the States, and the only limitation
on the power of Congress to lay taxes in the broadest manner
on State and citizen is that direct taxes laid on the States shall
be apportioned under the constitutional rule.
There are many different kind of taxes; for example, ac
cording to method and purpose of the imposition: Federal
taxes; state taxes; county, taxes; municipal taxes; district
taxes, and so forth; capitation taxes on States; direct taxes on
„ 'i
coun^"’ municipaHty„ or citizen; indirect taxes on citizen;
2105
words “ per cent ad valorem ” and insert “ te n ; ” in line 15, after
the words “ per dozen,” to strike out “ 10 cents ea ch ” and
insert “ §1 per dozen; ” in line 16, to strike out “ forty ” and
insert “ te n ; ” in line 17, to strike out the words “ 12 cents
each ” and insert “ $1.25 per dozen; ” and in the same line, to
strike out “ fifty ” and insert “ twenty,” so that, if amended, it
will read:
That blades, handles, or other parts of any of the foregoing knives or
erasers shall be dutiable at not less than the rate herein imposed upon
knives and erasers valued at more than 50 cents per dozen and not ex
ceeding $1.25 per dozen; razors, finished, valued at less than $1 per
dozen, 45 per cent ad valorem ; valued at $1 and less than $1.50
per dozen, 50 cents per dozen and 10 per cent ad valorem ; valued at
$1.50 and less than $2 per dozen, $1 per dozen and 10 per cent ad
valorem ; valued at $2 or more per dozen, $1.25 per dozen and 20 per
cent ad valorem.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I move to strike out that part
of the committee amendment beginning with the word “ razors,”
on page 50, line 11, and ending with the words “ ad valorem,” in
lines 17 and 18, and to insert the follow ing:
Razors and razor blades, finished or unfinished, valued at less than
$1.50 per dozen, 50 cents per dozen and 15 per cent ad valorem ; val
ued at $1.50 per dozen and less than $3 per dozen, $1 per dozen and 15
per cent ad valorem ; valued at $3 per dozen or more, $1.75 per dozen
and 20 per cent ad valorem.
Mr. President, the amendment proposed by the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. Simmons], which has just been disagreed
to, decreases the duties as fixed in the Dingley Act and, of
course, still more decreases the proposed duties as fixed in the
committee amendment to the pending bill. What I am now sug
gesting as an amendment is simply to restore the Dingley rates.
Mr. President, as has been already stated, the increase on
these articles is enormous and would be practically prohibitory.
I have in my hand a letter from the President of the Simmons
Hardware Company, of St. Louis, which is the largest hard
ware establishment in America, and therefore in the world. Mr.
Simmons sa y s:
I have been in this business fifty-three years, and during that time
I believe I have bought and sold more razors than any man who ever
lived in the United States. I hope I may be considered somewhat as
authority on this subject.
He says further:
inheritance taxes, and so forth
When the Constitutional Convention used the words author
izing Congress “ to lay and collect taxes,” without limitation it
meant what it said, and the limiting clauses of the Constitu
tion must be confined to the necessary meaning of that lan
guage^ within the meaning of the language itself. The inter
pretation which I have given to it is sustained by the previous
history and by the subsequent proceedings in Congress, as well
as by the debates in the Constitutional Convention bearing upon
this matter.
Mr. President, before I take my seat I wish to present an
amendment upon an entirely different matter, which with the
indulgence of the Senate, I shall read:
last line of paragraph 471d, page 193, insert the following:
r tV AT t x l'*te fised on all articles enumerated in Schedules A, B,
rC’ «
I*
and N of this act shall be reduced 5 per cent
P?r.,annum of thp rate fixed in this act, annually on June 30, for each
next. e°suing ten fiscal years: Provided, That if such graduated
leduction shall cause a diminution of the annual revenue from anv
iz ^ L
T dauectca
1rectede to
tortflxlethtnuT
thereinPresident
is authori£tu
aiK1
fix the raterated
on any
such the
article
or a r tic
le cpV.
txoo+Lof^
I)oint at which any such article Is found to have the
greatest normal revenue-producing power, but not at n rnt»*
than the rate fixed in this a c t : And provided further That such rate
shall not hereunder be reduced or fixed below the point at which it
would produce an amount equal to the difference in the cost of the
production of any such article in the United States and abroad
*
., L , difference in the cost of the production of anv such article in
the United States and abroad shall be determined bv "the Secretary of
the Treasury, from time to time, upon proper evidence and duly re
corded.’
J
Mr. President, at the eariy convenience of the Senate I shall
submit, some observations in regard to the amendment now
offered.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oklahoma
desire his amendment to be printed, and to be considered when
the portion of the bill to which it relates is readied?
- Mr. OWEN. I should like to have it printed in the Record.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection? The Chair
hears none.
The Secretary will report the pending amendment.
The Secretary. The pending amendment, offered by the Sen
ator from North Carolina [Mr. S im m o n s ], is, on page 50, para
graph 151, line 13, after the words “ per dozen,” to strike out the
words “ 6 cents each ” and insert “ 50 cents per dozen; ” in line
14, to strike out the word “ forty ” where it appears before the
The rate of wages paid the workmen who make razors in this country
is very little more than is paid for the same kind of labor in Germany
and England, and the trouble is that we have never made good razors
in this country. I doubt if you have ever shaved with a good razor
made in the United States or ever been shaved by a barber with one of
domestic manufacture. There is a peculiar art 111 making a razor or
grinding it. This art has attained its highest state of perfection in
Solingen, Germany, so that English manufacturers often send their
blades to Germany to be ground, and then they are sent back to England
to be finished and mounted.
I have letters from other large dealers, wholesale dealers, and
importers to the same effect.
Air. President, it seems to me the duty proposed by the com
mittee is beyond all reason, and that the business men who have
established a large export trade and who are handling the best
class of razors are entitled to some consideration. I offer this
amendment as expressive of th e ‘view and judgment of a very
large class of business men.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I was temporarily out of the
Chamber when this paragraph was reached and the vote taken
upon the amendment I offered yesterday. If I had been in the
Chamber, I should have modified my amendment so as to have
conformed it very largely to the amendment now offered by the
Senator from Missouri [Mr. S tone].
I desire, Mr. President, now to read a few extracts from a
letter from Mr. Norvell, president of the Norvell-Shapleigh
Hardware Company.
,
Attached hereto is an article from the Iron Age, which speaks
for itself. I shall ask to have it read within a few minutes.
Mr. Norvell says:
We believe In protecting the American laboring man ; wo believe in
building up American manufactures, but we do not believe m tying
up tlie distributers and consumers of this country band and „
delivering them bodily to the manufacturers to be done with as they
please. ♦ ♦ *
To shut out the importation of razors on account of the small manu
facturing industry of this country strikes us as being absurd. To ad
vance the duty to 100 per cent, as proposed, means there w ill lie no
revenue for the Government and that the business will be turned over
to the cutlery manufacturers on this side, who already have au asso
ciation—
Meaning a trust, I suppose—
There is practically no competition on cutlery between our manufac
turers.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from North Caro
lina yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.
2106
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator is misinformed when he
suggests there is a trust in the manufacture of cutlery. There
is nothing of the kind.
Mr. SIMMONS. I beg the Senator s pardon. I did not sug
gest that. I so understood the writer to say.
M r . GALLINGER. 'Elion the Senator’s correspondent is mis
i n f o r m e d , because there i s no such tru st or combination in this
country.
,
„
Mr. SIMMONS. He does not say so in specific terms. He
says “ an association.” I interpret that to mean in that con
nection a trust.
I send to the Secretary’s desk and ask to have read what I
have marked in brackets from the Iron Age. We have heard a
great deal in this Chamber in the last two days about the high
prices now prevailing in this country being the result, not of
extortionate prices charged by the manufacturers, but of the
unreasonable prices charged by retailers and jobbers. The
article which I send up deals with that phase of this question,
and I think it well to have it read to the Senate.
Tlic VICE-PRESIDENT. Without objection, the Secretary
will read 'as requested.
The Secretary read as follows:
There are other interests in this country to consider besides those of
<IUOnlmnnvCioodMSVsnecially in the hardware line, the tariff was plnced
so h ell It' meunt ’absolute prohibition. The goods stopped coming from
Euv'ope. A f there were no importations, naturally it followed there
was no revenue. So the Government lost out. .T he. entire trade of the
lines was turned ove
m X t 0\hemTeWeTffromUeIch other. Therefore there' has been ncTfor:
Ggn competition, and there has been no domestic competition. The
lobberThe retaficr and the consumer have been at the mercy of the
inanufimturer.
Bpectacle of a number of manufacturers prohv Alp tariff protected by patents on goods and machinery, prot • e bv ti e convright°laws, and then still further protected by selling
agreements Tile result has been just what might bo expected under
8UThen*Da *number of these manufacturers, haying their own nests so
nicelv V a th e m have absolutely forgotten that the jobber should have
a nercentnge ofproflt on their goods that slightly more than covered the
?os of dlstilbutlng them. In almost every case where manufacturers
hn vo boon nhie to u rin g about this condition they have cut down the
Em fll^oTjobbers on th^irgoods. This not only true of hardware, but
These' same manufacturers have then sold their goods to catalogue
h o S 0n n r PermI«ed the.n to demorato. the retaif profit so the re
tailers, by reason of this competition, we e cut out: of their profits.
Therefore we find bv this c o n d itio n tnat tno uoyoinment loses icv o nue. tjie jobber i's compelled to sell the goods.at about be cost of dIstrihntimi
pptnii merchant Is cut out of Jus piOTlls oy tho compctltfoE of caufolS e houses, while the manufacturers have derived onerni We believe In protecting our manufacturers; we believe, of course,
the Government must have rovonue: but we believe the pendulum has
swung entkriy too far on the side of many of our great manufacturers.
Take, for instance, a specific case.
T
. There has been a tariff of aliout
,on
R is now
proposed to advance this tariff to 100 per cent. Razor rannufacturlng In tills country is a very small Industry. Razors are made by
skilled mechanics. These skilled mechanics In Europe receive gooil
wages. Living in Europe is cheap. Wo are Informed It Is impossible
to persuado these European razor grinders to come over to this country.
Now It Is proposed to turn tlio enormous razor business of this country
over lo a few American manufacturers. It would be Impossible for
them to handle the business. The price or razors is already high
enough, but this change would mean the price would be doubled to
consumers.
„ ,
Not satisfied with this, the cutlery manufacturers of this country
aro trying to have_n law passed that all cutlery manufactured In a
foreign country should not only bear the name of that country, but the
name of the manufacturer should also be stamped on the goods. This
means the source of supply of every dealer In cutlery In this country
would be exposed. This requirement is not made of American manu
facturers Why should it bo made of foreign manufacturers or on any
other class of ‘foreign importation?
Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I desire to say that the commit
tee in considering this paragraph determined that there was no
doubt but that there must be an increase over the Dingley rate
to even maintain the few manufacturing institutions that we
have left in this country.
As I stated last Saturday, some years ago wo had 67 of them.
To-day there are only 5. We are manufacturing in this country
to-day between 17 and 20 per cent of the razors that are used
in the country. During the year 1908 there were imported
218,975 dozen razors. The valuation of the same was $463,883.79. The duties paid on the same was $263,935.11, or a total
amount of $727,768.90.
I wish, also, to call the attention of the Senate to the fact
that that does not include all by any manner of means. They
have been sent in here as handles and as blades not assembled,
hut shortly after entering they would be brought together and
jorm a razor. The reason why they were shipped in that way is
value of the handles or the value of the blades
of .in*,
would brinS them under the lower class or rate
or duty of 45 per cent.
M ay 17,
Mr. President, the price to jobbers of all American-mn
razors manufactured in this country for 1908 amounted to on y
$140,000. As far ns the letter read from the hardware estuollshment in St. Louis is concerned, I wish to say that the wage
of the workers in the United States are nearly three times wj»
the wage is in Germany. Forgers in Germany receive a weekly
wage of from $4.30 to $7, while in the United States they receive
from $15 to $21. The dry grinders receive $4.30 to
j
Germany and in the United States from $12 to $18. I’01.181'!'.1
receive in Germany from $4.30 to $5.70 per week, while in tne
United States they receive from $12 to $21.
I could go through all the list and compare the wage 1
Germany with the wage in the United States and it is in abon
the same ratio.
Mr. STONE. Where does the Senator get the statistics h0
is reading?
Mr. SMOOT. They can be found at the Department of Com
merce and Labor or in the reports made by our consuls showiDo
the amount of wages paid to the workmen in foreign countriesMr. STONE. My question was where the Senator got
statistics he has read. Wlint is the paper from w h i c h he reads*
Mr. SMOOT. This is signed by Mr. H. L. Henry for the
Geneva Cutlery Company, Mr. C. W. Silcox for the Robes0*1
Cutlery Company, and Mr. Tint Champlin for the George vV.
Korn Razor Company, a committee representing the cutlery
manufacturers of this country.
Mr. STONE. Manufacturers of razors?
Mr. SMOOT. A part of them manufacturers of razors.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I wish to ask a question to
information.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yi0lfl
to the Senator from North Carolina?
Mr. SMOOT. Certainly,
Mr. SIMMONS. Can the Senator tell us what part of a Par‘
tlcular razor is labor?
,
Mr. SMOOT. I can tell just abefut the part there is. Out 01
10 assorted grades of razors, the cost of labor was $31.11, the
material was $5.72, and the total cost was $36.83. In other
words, the cost of labor was $31.11, whereas the material cost
was $5.72, showing that nearly 87 per cent of the cost of man11'
facture is labor.
Mr. SIMMONS. Do I understand the Senator to say that th0
labor cost is 87 per cent of the value of the product?
Mr. SMOOT. It is nearly 87 per cent of the cost of t00
product.
Mr. SIMMONS. The labor cost alone?
Mr. SMOOT. The labor cost alone.
Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. President----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yi0ia
to the Senator from Nevada?
Mr. SMOOT. Certainly.
Mr. NEWLANDS. I will ask the Senator whether the Pu*'
pose of this amendment is to increase the domestic price o
razors in order to make their production profitable by American
manufacturers?
,
Mr. SMOOT. I am very thankful that the Senator has ask0
me that question, because I will demonstrate to him, I tb111*’
and to every Senator here that if this duty was increased ^
per cent, it would not make one cent’s difference to the con
sumer who buys the razor.
Mr. NEWLANDS. Will the Senator answer my q«ostl°B
specifically, whether the purpose of this amendment is to 1
crease the domestic price of razors in order to enable the u
mestic manufacturers of razors to produce them profitably'*
Mr. SMOOT. This amendment, Mr. President, is intended
protect the American manufacturer of razors so that he 0
manufacture razors in this country as against the cost of m01
facturing similar goods in foreign countries. If the Sena
will allow me, I will show to him, I think, and all Sena
here, that it will not cost the consumer, the purchaser oi
razor, a cent more with the increased duty.
, wjU
Mr. NEWLANDS. Before the Senator enters upon that,
he also answer another inquiry?
Mr. SMOOT. Certainly.
.
n(jMr. NEWLANDS. I observe that the reason why this 01 ge
ment is introduced is that the importation of razors is
as compared with the domestic production.
Mr. SMOOT. That is the fact.
xt „ find
Mr. NEWLANDS. I will ask the Senator where the?
the importation of any commodity is very small as con
with domestic production, whether they regard such a c
practically prohibitory, and therefore reduce the dutyen<j
Mr. SMOOT. So far as I am concerned, it would
vVflg
entirely upon my judgment, I will say, as to whether
1909
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
That committee can within a fortnight ascertain whether the
statement made with reference to glass pitchers is true or
false. That the committee can ascertain whether the state
ment here made with reference to Haviland china is true or
false, it can ascertain whether the statement here made is
true with reference to ready-made clothing, whether the retail
dealers are extortionate or not. That committee, if disposed to
perform its duty, can ascertain that information within two
weeks.
I repeat, Is the Senator willing to have a select committee
commissioned to this task, for the Democratic members of the
Finance Committee have not been exhausted with these labors?
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, the Democratic members of
the Finance Committee can carry on this investigation if they
see fit. There is no objection to that on anybody's part that I
know.
Mr. GORE. Will the Senator allow one or two good Repub
licans to be designated so that the manufacturers can have their
friends at court? We ask for no ex parte investigation. Has
the Senator recovered his-----Mr. ALDRICH. I am not sure that the Senator was ad
dressing me. I was not paying, at the moment, attention to the
remarks of the Senator as I should have been doing.
Mr. GORE. It probably would have been profitable to the
Senator. I ask if the Senator is willing to have one or two
good Republicans designated to cooperate with the Demo
crats. We do not ask, w’e do not desire, and we can not accept
an ex parte investigation. We do not want to give this a par
tisan cast. All we want is the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, ascertained by men who can not be suspected of
partisan purposes, bias, or prejudice.
Mr. ALDRICH. If the Senator simply desires to make a
speech upon%this subject, Mr. President, that is one thing. If
he desires to have this information secured at some time in
the future for the benefit of our successors and our children and
grandchildren, and will allow the resolution to go to the Com
mittee on Finance, the Democratic members of that committee
^
vigilant in the interest of the public, and I have
, some result can 1)0 accomplished in the way of a
future inquiry upon the subject.
1 Shou!d like to ask tke Senator a question.
M ill he allow the minority members of the committee to be
present at the deliberations?
Mr. ALDRICH. We allow the Democratic members of the
committee to lie present at its deliberations except when wo
are considering matters of pure party responsibility.
,
SIMMONS. Not in considering matters which affect the
tan If, and this does affect the tariff.
Mr. ALDRICH. I do not think there would be any trouble
about having the Democratic members present. We are alwavs
glad to have the Democratic members of that committee present
m our deliberations except when we are charged with the re
sponsibdity of preparing a tariff bill. I do not think that
there lias ever been any other meeting of the committee from
u Inch they have been excluded. If the Senator will allow the
resolution, without further discussion, to go to the committee
®ure fkat we will be able to arrive at some proper basis
°f
^n?»tl?a tT0n ^ U,th!s subject- if tbe Senator so desires.
resolution.1'1"' 1 ShaU mS1St Upon the motion to adopt the
2133
serve, makes it impossible for a Member of this body to prop
erly pass upon the very basis upon which this tariff was pro
posed to be written, and when I ask why it has not been done,
there is no answer.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I will ask for the reading of the
clipping which I sent to the desk.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the
paper will be read by the Secretary.
The Secretary read as follow s:
[From the Boston Traveler, May 13, 1909.]
LARGE-PROFIT TALES FALSE, SAYS F IL E N E ----BOSTON M ERCHANT TAK ES
E X C EPTIO N TO SENATOR SMOOT’S TARIFF-DEBATE STATEM ENT.
Edward A. Filene, the well-known business man of this city, does not
agree with Senator S moot in his statement that gloves costing $7.50 a
dozen retail for $2 a pair.
“ I am afraid that the Senator does not know- w hat he is talking
about,” said Mr. Filene. ‘‘ The ordinary $1 glove costs from $0 to $10
a dozen, while $2 gloves cost from $16 to $20 a dozen.
“ The fact is that competition in gloves is so intense and the margin
so narrow that specialty glove stores are steadily being obliged to go
out of business, while even the department stores in many cases fail to
make their glove departments pay.”
^
.
Mr. Filene said further that retail competition is so untrammeled
that it is impossible for a man familiar with the actual conditions to
conceive of such large profits being made as was referred to by some of
the Senators in debate.
.
„ „ . _
,
“ The average net profits, continued Mr. Filene,
of retail stores
are not more than 5 per cent. I know no store that averages 10 per
Relative to the alleged sale for $30 of a china dinner set that cost
$10.89, spoken of in the debate, Mr. Filene said that where a unique
article, on which there can be no competition, is imported, any price
the whim of the customer may induce him to pay may be obtained.
„
^ _
Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President-----The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does tbe Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from Utah?
Mr. GORE. Yes, sir.
^
^
„
Mr. SMOOT. I should like very much to have the Senate
understand that we were discussing the question of tbe cost of
manufacturing gloves, and I have never yet said that the re
tailer paid only $7.40 for those gloves.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President— The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from Minnesota?
Mr. GORE. Yes, sir.
Mr. NELSON. I suppose we are on razors, not on gloves.
Mr SMOOT. If the Senator had been listening, he would
know very well that the subject-matter presented here was not
on razors; it was on gloves.
A
, ,
Mr. President, I do not want the Senator from Oklahoma to
try to make it appear that I say that all the profit between the
manufacturer and consumer is made by tbe retailer. No such
statement or claim has ever been made. The only statement I
have ever made referred to the great difference between the
manufacturer’s cost and the final price paid by the customer.
That is the question and the difference that has been spoken of
by every Republican Senator on this floor discussing the sub
ject. It is not all chargeable to tbe retailer, and I want the re
tailer to understand that no one lias so stated. Even as to the
pane of glass that was spoken of, it was the cost of the glass
as it entered this country with the duty added, and then the
added cost to the consumer through the different stages of trade.
That was not by the retailer only. No one stated how many
hands that pane of glass passed through before it reached the
customer.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I wish to say that I have no
5!;:- S
S i U J t , Senator iKrmit "> “> ■ " •m u * u « . t
Certainly.
/ Mi. OWBN. I should like to make an inquiry of the chair purpose to misstate the exact issue between this side and the
/m a n of the Committee on Finance. During the last m m ™ ! ,' other side of the Senate. I accept the suggestion made by the
I the country was informed that the Republican leaders d esk id ’ senior Senator from Utah [Mr. S moot]. We do not insist, and
only a tariff which would measurs the difference in the cost of i have not suggested, that the other side charge the retail dealer
, production at home and abroad. Why has not the Finance Cnm. i as being exclusively responsible for the extortions practiced
\ mittee furnished that report to the Senate?
— _ . { in this country. As I understand, they join in this indictment
jobbers and the wholesale dealers and the retail dealers
Mr. ALDRICH. We are furnishing it constantly for the in the
of the country. This resolution calls in explicit terms for
formation of the Senator from Oklahoma and other Senators information upon each particular point, the prices charged by
who have not the information themselves.
the manufacturers, the prices charged by the wholesale dealers,
— "•Mr. OWEN. Mr. President-----and the prices charged by the retail dealers. It is full and
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla exact information which the resolution seeks, and which the
homa still further yield to his colleague?
committee will undoubtedly furnish when it discharges the
Mr. GORE. Certainly
duties imposed by this resolution.
Mr. OWEN. I call the attention of the chairman of the
Sir, I think the Senator from Utah mends the case but
Finance Committee to the fact that the Senate has been fur
ightly when he arrays on one side the manufacturer and on
nished with no proper report upon this matter by the Commit
e
other side the jobbers, the wholesale dealers, and the retee on Finance. There is no report showing the difference in
il dealers. I accept his amendment and his suggestion; but I
the cost of production at home and abroad. The voluminous
esire to enter a disclaimer in behalf of each and everv one
testimony, if it might be so called, a part of which was sworn
f those indicted classes.
to and a very great part of which was not sworn to, is no infor f 1 remember the Senator from Utah did say that razors which
mation to the Senate with regard to these particular schedules were sold to the retailer for $9 a dozen, were resold by him
by him
To invite a Member of this body to go through 8,000 pages of at $2 apiece or $24 a dozen. That, of course, was not’a charge;
undigested stuff, prepared by those with a peculiar interest to it was a mere intimation, a mere ’ iusinuation“ thTt’ th e ^ S a ii
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
M ay 18,
dealer was extorting unreasonable profits from his customers. into an investigation of that kind and pass the pending tariff
We want that question investigated, and we want to know the bill within any reasonable time.
Mr. OWEN. I ask the Senator why this investigation has
truth and the facts.
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. S immons] yesterday not been prosecuted heretofore?
lmd an extract read from the Iron Age, which, In express
Mr. GALLINGER. I will answer that by saying that I cer
terms, stated that the jobbers, the wholesale men, and the tainly know of no reason why it should have been made.
retail merchants were at the mercy of the manufacturers. That /M r. OWEN. Does the Senator think that the proposition
is what 1 believe, and I believe a majority on this side concur jtliat this tariff should be based upon a difference in the cost or
in that opinion. We want the matter investigated, and if they (production at home and abroad affords no reason for this
-""T
be not guilty, allow them to bo vindicated. That article from •inquiry?
the Iron Age stated and charged in express terms that the
Mr. GALLINGER. I take it for granted that to ascertain
retail men, the wholesale men, and the jobbers were at the the details of that matter, the State Department would have to
mercy of the manufacturers, notwithstanding the senior Sen communicate with our consular agents and other representa
ator from Maine [Mr. H ale] admitted that the manufacturers tives abroad, and that it would be an inquiry that would take
were not responsible, notwithstanding the senior Senator from months, if not years, to conclude.
Maine admitted that the middlemen and the wholesale and s-Mr. OWEN. A circular letter might do that.
retail dealers were responsible for prices fixed to the con
Mr. GALLINGER. How long would it take the agents
abroad to ascertain the cost of goods manufactured in the va
sumer. That is the exact Issue which we want determined.
I will merely add, Mr. President, that the common thief, rious industrial centers of Europe?
the red-handed assassin are entitled under our form of govern i*- Mr. OWEN. Why has no effort been made in regard to the
ment to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Wo do not ask even matter?
Mr. GALLINGER. Well, Mr. President, I answer the Sena
so much as that for the retail and the wholesale men and
the jobbers- but we are willing for such a trial as we can tor by saying that I think the committee has furnished all the
obtain, not by an impartial jury, but by one which may have evidence that was available in this discussion.
Mr. ALDRICH. The consuls have been engaged in this work
some predilections in the matter. If Senators on the other side
who have made these charges are not willing to fix the re for two or three years.
Mr. GALLINGER. And I do think, Mr. President, that we
sponsibility for high prices where that responsibility belongs
then I want to fix the responsibility for that refusal where it had better turn our attention to the consideration of the sched
ules
of this bill. A gentleman, pretty well Informed, stated
belongs.
recently that the country was losing $10,000,000 a day because
Mr, GAT,LINGER and Mr. ALDRICH. Question !
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the mo of the delay in the consideration of this tariff b ill; and I have
tion to refer the resolution submitted by the Senator from no doubt that that is aii underestimate. It seems to me that
we ought to give the business men of this country an oppor
Oklahoma [Mr. GoueI to the Committee on Finance.
Mr GORE I ask for the yeas and nays on that question.— tunity to do business.
■
/ Mr OWEN Mr President, I should like to make a suggeTN^Mr. OWEN Who is it that is losing money?
Mr.
GALLINGER.
The business interests of the United
/t io n with regard to the manner in which, under the commercial
/ practice in this country, prices are frequently fixed even if it States.
l be not a uniform rule. As I understand it, it is the .practic^ i^Mr. OWEN. Does the Senator make that charge without
that the manufacturers determine not only their own price td specification and proof?
Mr. GALLINGER. I make it upon the authority of a well\ the wholesaler and to the jobber, but that they go further and
\ require the retailers not to go below a fixed in ice and, if they known gentleman in tlie other H ouse; and I think he probably
had
looked into the matter. He is a man who is not in the
do go below a fixed price, the jobber is compelled to cuTttiSt
habit of making wild statements. I make the statement also
retailer off of his list.
upon the authority of business men in this country who are to—Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President
/ Mr OWEN One moment. And if the jobber does not carry lay hoping that Congress will be wise enough to speedily pas3
/ out this fixed ironclad trade rule, in that case the manufacturer his bill, so that they can start up their industries and give effl/ cuts off the jobber. I understand that to be the practice in rc- ;)[pyment to labor.
Mr. OWEN. If I understand, Mr. President, there is
■ lation to the cotton goods made In New England, for example, by
the American Print Company. It may not be true, but I believe quate answer to my suggestion as to why this inquiry
previously
been made.
it is true. I have been informed by men capable of knowledge
"Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, the inquiry ifse"
in tlie matter and in a position to know that it is true. It Is
tjprd that it does not require an answer.
well to inquire into tlie matter as to whether or not it is true.
fr. OWEN. It may be absurd, Mr. President, to tlie Senator
I do not think it is a right tiling in the Senate for gentlemen in
bo has just taken his seat, and ho may regard the pledge maoe
the body here without information to stigmatize Hie retailer as
guilty of fleecing the public; and I think it is equally repre o the American people as ridiculous and unworthy of fuluh"
hensible as a practice to charge any man, whether he is a nent, but I take it when tlie pledge Is made that this tai'm
bill will be based upon the difference, in the cost of product^1
wholesaler, a jobber, or a retailer—
at home and abroad, the legislators in this body S h o u ld ^ ^
-""Mr. GALUNGER. Mr. President—
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from that information, and it is not absurd to ask for it. ------- / L Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, why do not the Senator
Oklahoma yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
and his associates obtain it? They have as much leisure as any
with pleasure,
Mr. OWEN. I* do,
.........
Mr. GALLINGER. What was the exact statement the Senar of us.
tor made concerning the cotton manufacturers of New England?, /M r . OWEN. In answer to that, I will say that the minority
f Mr. OWEN. I said I was informed that the American Print members of the Finance Committee were not even honored wit
j
f Company imposed a rule upon the wholesaler and the jobber 1 the privilege of hearing the matters presented before the in
handling their products and upon the retailer that if the goods iUority members of the Finance Committee, and it was the ple9»2
were sold for less than the price fixed at which the retailer tof the Republican platform that I am insisting is not bei » /
should sell them he was cut off from the handling of those/ \arried out.
Moods; in other words, he was blacklisted.
--------Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, that has been turns
Mr. GALLINGER. Has the Senator any evidence of that?
over half a dozen times.
4
/ Mr! OWEN. I will undertake to furnish the evidence to this ) 1 Mr. OWEN. But it has not been answered satisfactorily* al
/committee when tlie committee is organized and ready for the, fan not be.
(investigation.
'-•Mr. GALLINGER. The members of the minority on that co
Mr. GALLINGER. It seems to me tlie Senator ought to fur- mittee have found no particular fault about it, I will say to
nlsh It this morning. He is making an accusation, and it is a Senator, and I do not know why he should.
dr. OWEN. The reason why I object to this omission ^
very serious one.
——,
f Mr. OWEN. I am making no accusation. I am simply stat iecause I represent a State in this body with a million a«u ‘t
ialf of people, whose interests are involved, and I
in g what has been said, and I think it is worthy of an inquir
right to know what the facts are upon which this tariff
Mr. GALLINGER. Of course, Mr. President, there
being
made; and when I ask for the difference in the co._ ^
sands of things worth inquiring into, but time is short and
human life has Its limitations.
production at home and abroad, upon which the RoPa,) u.jff
In reference to this particular resolution, which the Senator’s party in its last platform declared they would write this| ‘ .
colleague lias introduced, I think every Senator who has taken bill, I am told that the inquiry is absurd. It is a most unre ^
a sane view of the present situation sees that we can not go able response.
i x 18
ing tariff
ation has
:iat I cer-|
de.
j
reposition"
tie cost of
for this
ascertain
d have to
ipresentaould take
le agents
n the va*
rd to the
the Senai
ed all the
this work
, that we
;lie s c h e d stated
y because
a d I have
i me that
an oppor3d,
United
rit hoot
i well'
dhabU
in tb®
it als°
are to-
1909
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
Mr. DU PONT. Mr. President-----V Mr. OWEN. The suggestion which I made with regard to
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla-/ cotton goods was one which I thought a very important one,
j
homa yield to the Senator from Delaware?
/ because it relates to a necessary of life, and it bears directly
j
r. OWEN. With pleasure.
I upon the question of whether or not the retailer is guilty, „a£„ /
Mr. GALLINGER. If the Senator from Delaware will per-'-^exorbitant charges.
uiit me, the Senator from Oklahoma does not quote me corMr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I do know this------rectly. i dpi n0t mean to say that the inquiry was absurd; but
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. ^Does the Senator from OklaI say it is absurd to think that we can obtain the information homa yield to the Senator from Utah?
Mr. OWEN. With pleasure.
desired during the pendency of this bill.
Mr. SMOOT. I do know that the cotton goods which are
. Mr- DU PONT. Mr. President, I should like to call the atten
tion of the Senator from Oklahoma. [Mr. O w e n ] to the pro purchased from 'the cotton manufacturers in this country, so
vision of this bill for a tariff commission, whose function it far as the great institutions that buy them in my State are
"would be to inquire into all such intricate questions and to pre concerned, are never limited to a price of any kind. They may
sent the information desired, which, in my opinion, it will take sell under cost if they wish, or they may have whatever profit
n good deal of time to procure and which may be utilized for they can get over that.
n* Mr. OWEN. I think there never was a more erroneous statefuture reference.
I should like to ask the Senator from Oklahoma if he does not ment in the same number of words than that made by the
see that the methods of modern business have changed enor- Senator from Utah.
niously in the last few years? As I understand, no charge has
Mr. SMOOT. Well, Mr. President, I am perfectly prepared
been made against the retailers or the jobbers explicitly, but the to prove to the Senator that that is absolutely true.
_—
general statement has been made that the tariff per se did n o t*-^''"Mr. OWEN. I should like to have a committee charged to •
necessarily increase the price of articles of necessity or other- hear the evidence and give us the facts.
—/
wise to the consumer. If one considers the enormous army of
Mr. SMOOT. I am not talking of the committee s work at
runners and business agents that are traveling all over the a l l ; I am talking about the absolute facts concerning potion _
country, the money paid for advertisements in the leading news- goods.
papers, and all those things of this generation, he can readily / Mr. OWEN. The Senator from New York [Mr. D e p e w ] well
perceive that there is an enormous amount of money expended/ stated yesterday his view with regard to the relative veracity
m those directions. Somebody lias to pay for it. It is evident/ of the testimony submitted to Members of this body, and I do
that the cost of doing modern business, owing to competition/ not feel prepared to receive any statement made merely upon
between the sellers, whether they be jobbers, wholesalers, ou the word of some gentleman who has a purpose to serve. We
retailers, has increased immensely and must necessarily result are constantly being misinformed on both sides of every case.
m increased cost to the consumer.
Somebody ought to digest the truth and make known the
Mr. OWEN. In answer to the Senator from Delaware-----truth, so that the Senate may rely upon it. The matter about
Mr. GORE. Mr. President-----which I wished to make an inquiry was, why was it that the
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla Finance Committee, charged with that responsibility and with
homa yield to his colleague?
unlimited means at their disposal, during all of these months
^..M r. OWEN. In just one moment.
have made no such inquiry and made no such digest for our
Mr. GORE. I merely want to make one suggestion.
information and guidance as legislators? I think it is a very
, J i r . OWEN. I yield.
serious omission. I do not mean to make that statement in
Mr. GORE. The Senator from Delaware joins the Senator a critical or unkind spirit at all, and I think I owe an apology
4-a
mat
c<m
Mission
ion and *
1 1,llm5
this ***W
unrea ioP/
ARm'nmo-n o-f5 fliA r^ATnTnitf’Pfk OT1 1' 1I1RQC6 XU XXOt llflVlTlff
-— ------- —
ivi n Guruuer s inquest; it does not ask for a post-mortem investigation- we do odd pages of miscellaneous matter laboriously to wade through
not care to inquire into the cause of death; we want a commit ' n a vain effort to get something out of it that I could really
tee of safety, to anticipate and prevent dissolution. [Laughter.!
egard as a finality; and obviously it is almost impossible; but
/ Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I should like, in response to theN
will say, with all of the traveling men in the employ of the
Senator from Delaware, to ask him whether it is a fixed poliev
anufacturers, with all of the information available in the
* that a tori £
r
business S S s of ou? own country with regard to prices and
Mr. DU PONT.8? h a ^ 1 n “
o
Mr. OWEN. The Senator made that
' remarks.
Mr. DU PONT. r, „„„ „ , ,, c,
have
no inrormation
inforn11tic J uin, that
t b case
I p further
w u ^
m
ne no
say to W
2135
n _
~
£world,
J S ,e 2that
* information is available; it is not far Sdistant;
S hS T Sit
as a preamble to his I can be obtained; and it ought to be obtained before this bill
, _
,
I goes to its passage. It ought to be obtained in three weeks
h 01*’ 1 w V ? 7 that 1 1 easilJ; and I believe it could be obtained if a proper inquiry
than
what I have seen I were made
*■
- ----- ---------- -—
—
‘ nu;t?niiV<; lL StatG<pL +,1 5°,
]“ °'VTwhether there has been L - ^ r r. CARTER. Mr. President, has the Senator from Okla°® cial “ Mice of that land, but I gather information of homa concluded *
______ _
Mr OW ENI0I*will sav)fha?U»'<i
f
' /M r . OWEN. I have concluded, and yield the floor tc T tb ^ )
^
that the Senatorfrom
fromDelaware
Delawaremade
made J&enator from Montana
.. mr.
, u WEN. I will say
--------------Senator
that as a preamble for his remarks. I now ask the chairman
.ilr. CARTER. Mr. President, one hour of the day has been
of the Committee on Finance whether the suggestion made by spent in a characteristic discussion, and it is, I think, proper
the Senator from Delaware and by the Senator from Montana, enough to make some observations upon the discussion itself
is tiue, that it is proposed to have a tariff commission prC
and the conditions leading up to it.
as a part of this measure?
For many years the Republican party of the country has been
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, if the Senator from Okla charged with maintaining a system of organized robbery under
homa
had shown his usual
industry in examining
the
arnend- the
of <a1 J.JrOlCCllYC
protective tariff.
once aacquit
enrn o n fG «3iicrcrAQfnrl l\rr
A A m m lffo A i.,_
l i t
”
^
lilt? lform
U i i l l UL
L c lilil.
lI dat
b unutL
u iu i i < ^many
j
th?t f a c t o r rn-m Sfth committee’ he woukl lmve ascertained lightened members of the Democratic party from any responsiMr OWFV rr1, ' 4a „
bility whatever for this loose and unwarranted but widely.. *
* hen it is a fact.
anvnna /’iinrmn
spread
charge. Tf
It is ooinriicinn&
astonishing, hmvpvpT.
however, to
to nerceive
perceive that
that in
in
Jlr. ALDRICH. The Senator would know that if he had this Chamber there are still Senators of the opposition who
read the. amendment suggested by the committee.
adhere to that ancient and discredited notion. The twm Sena
Mi. OWEN. I did not know it, and will carefully examine it. tors from Oklahoma have this morning displayed a desire for
Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President-----information that would be very creditable to them as students
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla in an academy, but not at all creditable to Senators of the
homa yield to the Senator from Utah?
United States.
Mr. OWEN. I do, with pleasure.
The violent presumption may be indulged that a Senator
Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from representing a State in this Chamber is familiar with the
Oklahoma, I wish to say that I am fully aware that in some current literature of the time relating to particular matters
cases institutions that sell the product of an author—for in engrossing the attention of Congress. It must be known, and
stance, such ns a book—may have a stipulated retail price, but is known to both Senators, that the consular reports of the
sometimes books are sold to the general trade, and the great United States, issued with regularity in pamphlet form and
department stores will make a “ sale day ” and sell them many subsequently In bound volumes, contain information from every
times under the cost. There has been such a thing in this coun part of the civilized world with reference to the cost of pro
try as the publisher of a certain book stating that he would not duction, market relations, and even social conditions
The
sell those goods unless they were sold at a regular price.
Senator from Oklahoma would have the Senate exonerate him
2136
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
M ay 18,
from any responsibility, if you please, in the matter of inform Senators be now deputed to leave this Chamber, where the
ing himself and pass over that responsibility to a committee presence of every Senator is necessary for the proper guarding
composed of his fellow Senators. The Senator comes forward of the interests of the people or of the State he represents;
with the discredited charge, slightly veiled and often made, that these Senators go hence into some committee room or
that the tariff is robbery, that it is based upon injustice, and across the ocean to get some particular fact which is unknown
that it exacts from the people of the country an unjust measure to the Senator from Oklahoma; to get some statement of the
difference between wages in Hongkong and San Francisco, so
of their substance for the support of special interests.
that the Senator may be advised with reference to the differ
v /} ir . OWEN. Mr. President-----The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Mon ence in wages in the two places named.
The task prescribed by the resolution could not be well and
tana yield to the Senator from Oklahoma?
faithfully performed
of two years’ time.
An intelligent
iU
li \jX
X .X \i XliilU
J
Uvi
v «7^ short
^
“
Mr.
CARTER.
IL do
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I should like to plead guilty t o \ preparation of the data called for from original sources by
,
1
.
4 - V ,i- T
+ c iv if p h i l l O «
h /A f f r o *
n
! that vresolution
A O A l u t l A n twould
t r A n l /I vrequire
A m i i v A extensive
ir * ^ +
m
VCkl
O
v t o T l C l V A read
travel, extensive
the charge that I regard this tariff bill as little better than a
robbery, and I shall at the convenience of the Senate demon- ing, and a careful compilation of statistical matter reduced to
^strate that this bill contains precisely what the Supreme Court: percentages and involving a world-wide exploration of social,
described as “ robbery” in the Topeka case. (Citizens’ Sayings industrial, and economic conditions generally.
I now submit to the Senate that probably neither Senator
and Loan Association of Cleveland v. Topeka, 20 Wallace, 6ooT)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, I realize that I was not mis from Oklahoma will vote right on this bill because of the lack
quoting, nor did I misinterpret, the views of the Senator, but of this information; but they ought to hold their peace, and
the Senator brings the charge with the same unfortunate equip permit Senators who do know to proceed with the public busi
ment that has characterized those who have made that charge ness while they are informing themselves.
.Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me?
from the beginning.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Mon
. Mr. OWEN. Mr. President----Mr. CARTER. Just a moment. The Senator makes the in tana yield to the Senator from Oklahoma?
dictment, but he can not establish the venue; he can not par
Mr. CARTER. I do.
—
Mr. OWEN. I should like to suggest to the Senator from
ticularize or show the character of the property nor the value
Montana that one of the most valuable reasons why the Senator
involved.
from Oklahoma should not hold his peace is the bringing out of
w-Mr. OWEN. Mr. President----the
Senator from Montana, with his brilliant apologies for a
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Mon
tana yield to the Senator from Oklahoma ?
Very bad bill.
'
Mr. CARTER. Certainly.
*-*■
Mr. CARTER. I am making no apology for any bill. I have
s yir. OWEN. With the permission of the Senator from Mon not mentioned the bill. But since the Senator does bring the
tana "I shall reduce that matter to a mathematical demonstra matter up, permit me to call his attention to the peculiarities
tion ’within a very few days and submit the proof of guilt so of the assaults made on this bill. There has been no attempt
.plain that the Senator can not answer the indictment or the in the course of this discussion to argue the merits of the policy
or principle of protection as opposed to the doctrine of tariff for
proof.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, I am now engaged in an earn revenue only, or free trade. I think the Senator from ’Texas
est effort to show that the Senator fiom Oklahoma should do very properly said that there was no such thing thought of as
that for himself which he seeks to have the Finance Committee free trade. That was an expression cut away and downstream.
do for him w*e can not take an intellectual spoon and feed The only contention existing here, according to his lucid view,
Senators in'this Chamber. [Laughter.] They must, Mr. Presi was as t;o the application of the duties with a view to protec
dent, inform themselves, or else hold their peace.
tion, or the application of the duties for the purpose of raising
revenue and for that purpose only.
v_Mr. OWEN. Mr. President----Mr. CARTER. I know the Senator from Oklahoma can, with
Outside of the Senator from Texas, we have had learned dis
out any difficulty whatever, frame the indictment to which he cussions from the opposite side upon special points. The in
refers with as much accuracy and truth and there is very lit ability of the opposition to assail the doctrine of protection, and
tle truth in it—as any other Senator on this floor; and I there their consciousness of that inability, are made manifest by the
fore point to the fact that the demand of the Senator for col fact that side issues are industriously selected.
lated data and specific information made of the Finance Com
In the course of a discussion some days ago the Senator from
mittee is a demand for that which he already has in his pos Utah made the observation that the high price of articles
session and which is available to every Senator possessed of an throughout the country could not be traced exclusively to the
protective tariff. Indeed, I think he alleged that it could not
inquiring disposition.
Mr. BACON. Will the Senator permit me to suggest that the be traced to the tariff at all; that the retail price of articles
party with which he acts has too much need for spoons to feed had no special relation to the manufacturer’s cost, or to tho
infant industries to spare one for any other purpose. [Laugh price at which the manufacturer sold. That statement by the
Senator from Utah has been warped and distorted from time
ter.]
Mr. CARTER. . I am very glad, indeed, Mr. President, that the to time so that the senior Senator from Oklahoma would have
Senator from Georgia is not one of those on this floor who it now read that the Senator from Utah said that the retail
needs the bottle-fed treatment, so far as information is con dealers of this country were engaged in a vast conspiracy to
raise prices without reference to cost; that they were oppress
cerned. [Laughter.]
Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma permit ing the people; and that they, and not the protective tariff,
were responsible for high prices throughout the country.
me?
—“S ,1
r Mr. OWEN. I have not the floor. I have been trying to 1 I submit that the Record itself will show that no such conten
/ask the Senator from Montana a question.
—
ption was made by the Senator from Utah, nor by any Member
- • Mr. TILLMAN. Well, will the Senator from Montana permit on this side of the Chamber. There has been no such charge
made in this body. Eulogies upon the retail dealers of the
m<The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from country are, therefore, supererogatory and unnecessary. We all
know who the retail dealers are—the men who conduct the
Montana yield to the Senator from South Carolina?
stores in the villages and at the crossroads of the country; an
Mr CARTER. Yes; I will yield to any Senator.
Mr’ TILLMAN. I want to say that the wish or request of honorable, upright body of citizens, constituting at the cross
the Senator from Oklahoma is entirely unreasonable, because roads, as the merchant does, the only exchange the farmer
he is expecting you to furnish a rope to hang yourselves, and knows, the place where he sells the eggs and gets the coffee,]
where he sends the butter and the cheese to market and gets in
you will not do that. [Laughter.]
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma exchange the calico and the various things the family needs at
and the Senator from South Carolina have been speaking for a home. This retail merchant may sell some things at a high
party that for a generation has made certain charges with price, but he frequently sells other things below actual cost in
reference to this protective tariff, and they come here as empty- order to keep goods from becoming shopworn.
But it is useless to go into the details of this relation of the
handed as the day they were born, when they undertake to
sustain the charges, and iu that naked condition they piteously country merchant to the farmer and his other patrons, because
appeal to the Finance Committee for definite information with there has been no charge made on this floor, and no one pre
which to support their party claims. Where is the system of tends to support or suggest the charge, that the country mer
robbery and what are the proofs with reference to the charges chants are in combination to raise prices and then to charge the
heretofore made by the Senators against this bill or existing raise to the protective tariff.
The country merchants of the United States as a rule are
la w ? Why, Mr. President, the senior Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. Gore] presents a resolution asking that a committee of protectionists. They have observed that under the reign of the
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Protective policy trade is better, the purchasing power of the
People is greater, work is more generally given to men who are
willing to work, and wages are better. So that the country
merchant, the beneficiary of active trade, is a protectionist in
ihe majority of cases. As a rule, you will find that the country
store is the headquarters for the protection propaganda in the
neighborhood. The country merchant is not in conspiracy with
nnybody to createM:he impression that the high price of goods is
attributable to the protective tariff.
On that side track we have lingered for three or four days;
and every morning, I doubt not, with almost unvarying regularity, some Senator will be found to rise to defend the country
merchant from a charge that has never been made. Thrash
out this man of straw, and in some remote quarter it will be
understood that the fight was rea l; that the good name of the
country merchant was actually assailed; and that a bold, brave,
and fearless statesman rose in his place to defend this kindly
citizen, the country merchant, from a gross and violent assault.
Mr. President, the side tracks will be numerous, and discussion
with reference to the false issues raised will consume time, but
will not enlighten anybody upon any line of information worthy
of serious notice.
I am gratified to observe that the great body of our colleagues
on the opposite side of the Chamber are earnestly, anxiously
waiting to vote on the merits of this bill. It may be that the
‘Senator's statement of $10,000,000 per day as a loss to the
country because of our continued delay may be but a specu
lative estimate of an important fact. But that the country’s
great business interests are affected by uncertainty and doubt
no one will seriously question.
No greater injury can be inflicted upon the business of any
community than to involve the future in doubt or the basis
• ®\lculation iu uncertainty. No merchant, no manufacturer
in this broad land to-day knows what conditions will be thirty
(lays from now as to an economic measure touching every inter
est in all tlie country, from the humblest home to the largest
enterprise in all the land. It may not be ten million; it may
be only five million; but it may be $50,000,000 per day of injury.
thfB c o u n Z ufn ab° Ut r T ’00°
are alleged to be idle in
t i s countiy to-day, and I verily believe that the 2,000 000
men who are now idle will be employed inside of thirty days
after the passage of this bill, and that, too, without reference
to whether a schedule is a shade above or a shade below a
given rate.
ithC C
i nmtry wants t0 kH<>w is the exact condition that
s to obtain for a reasonable time in the future. It wants to
know where the bed rock is located, so that it can lay a founda
tion on it. No prudent business man will violate the old biblical
injunction by building on the sand, and the present relation
of these tariff schedules to the business world is precisely as
the bed of sand to the foundation of the house.
*
What we desire is to cooperate with our good friends on the
other side for a full and free debate on the merits of these
policies, if that debate be deemed essential. This carpina
criticism with reference to a remark made upon one side or the
,Wii h a view t0 getting UP speeches for the next campaign
iitlle befits the occasion with which we are called upon to deal.
• 1 !V10'V , ia(: 110 Senator will deliberately procrastinate. I real
ize that every Senator on the floor is anxious that the bill be
passed and passed at an early day. And I hope that with that
understanding we may have universal accord with the pro
posals to proceed with the consideration of the paragraphs and
the disposition of the b ill at the earliest p o s sib le hour 1
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President-----Mr. CARTER. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, before the Senator from Noi-tl
Carolina proceeds, I desire to ask the Senator from Oklahoma
if he is not willing to modify his resolution so as to refer this
matter to a special committee instead of the Finance Com
mittee? A moment’s reflection will convince him that it is
obviously impossible for the Finance Committee to perform this
work pending the consideration of this bill. We must all b<
here in the Chamber.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, I will ask the Senator fron
Texas how the members of tlie special committee could attenc
to this work and be in the Chamber at the same time?
Mr. BAILEY. In view of the fact that they are not specially
charged with the consideration or conduct of this bill, thej
would doubtless willingly perform any duty with which tin
Senate would specially charge them. I see no reason w h y' i
special committee might not undertake the inquiry; and with
out reference to the period which will be required to conclude
it—that being left open—it might be a valuable one. But i
is absolutely certain that the Finance Committee could no
undertake it.
2137
I therefore ask if the Senator from Oklahoma is not willing
to strike out “ the Finance Committee,” and substitute “ a special
committee to be appointed by the presiding officer of the Sen
ate,” to consist of four Republican and three Democratic Sen
ators, if he chooses to inject the element of politics into it?
I see he has suggested that the Finance Committee is com
posed of members of both political parties. I hope the Senator
from Oklahoma can see his way clear to do that:
While I am on mv feet, I want merely to make this reply
to the Senator from Montana: It is not our fault, nor are we
in anyway reponsible for the fact, that a new rule for the con
struction of a tariff bill has been devised and laid down.
The Republican national..convention itself has prescribed the
rule according to which this bill should be framed, and I can
see no reasonable ground for complaint on the part of those
having in charge the measure, that Senators on this side de
mand of them that they at least demonstrate that the bill falls
within the rule prescribed by the convention of their party. It
is no hardship to require a Senator having charge of this bill to
show that it falls within the requirements of his own party’s
platform. It is true, as the Senator from Montana says, that
every Senator on this floor has access equal to that which the
Senators on the Finance Committee have to these public docu
ments, and Senators may work it out to their own satisfaction.
But if Senators do not find themselves satisfied with the in
formation accessible or obtainable, they have a perfect right to
demand that Senators on the other side shall lay before the
Senate and the country facts and arguments that at least will
vindicate their bill according to the rule established by their
own platform.
Mr. CARTER. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma to permit
me to make one observation in reply to the Senator from Texas.
Mr. GORE. Certainly.
. , .
. ,,
Mr. CARTER. It has been often suggested here that the
Republican party platform adopted at Chicago made a new rule
for tlie guidance of those ‘ called upon to can y the piotective
policy into legislative enactment. According to niy conception
of the fact, there never has been any other rule tor the guidance
of those engaged in protective-tariff legislation. Ihere never
was, according to my idea, any disposition on the part ot any
Republican Congress or statesman to impose a duty higher than
that which made up the difference between the cost of wages
here and abroad, plus a reasonable return on the capital in
vested. That rule, of long standing, was crystallized into a plank
in the platform at Chicago for the first time, but it was like an
old rule of the common law with us from the beginning as a
rule of action.
„
„
Mr. BAILEY. If that rule was well established and well
understood, then the Republican party was engaged in a foolish
procedure to promulgate it. I thought, inasmuch as it made its
appearance in the Chicago Republican platform for the first
time, I wras warranted in saying it was the first authoritative
enunciation of the rule, although I agree, as the Senator says,
that that has been the argument of Republican Senators and
Republican orators and editors. But, then, they for the first
time, as I understand, succeeded in forcing it into the Repub
lican platform as an authoritative declaration.
I desire to say this, too, while I am on my feet, and then I
w ill not trespass further upon the Senator from Oklahoma.
I myself have not complained of this lack of information. I
have found more matter available*for my use than I have found
time to use, and I myself make no such complaint. But Sena
tors on both sides feel—and I am not perfectly sure but that
they have a perfect right to feel—that members of the com
mittee will not select from this vast mass of matter—some ir
relevant and some relevant—those parts of it which will con
tribute to the enlightenment of Senators and the country; and
I understand that to be the complaint which the Senators from
Oklahoma are now making.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President-----~~
Mr. OWEN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma allow me for
just a moment?
~— ■—
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to his colleague?
Mr. GORE. Certainly.
N*.
/M r . OWEN. I should like to say, as far as my comments a r e\
Concerned, that I impose no restrictions whatever on the mi- ]
p ority members of the Committee on Finance. I understand
(they were not even permitted to be present when the considera/
\tion of the bill was in progress.
■
Mr. BAILEY. I do not want to do my adversaries an in
justice. While that is true, we had a rule of the committee
authorizing us to hold our own sessions, at least to employ all
the experts we wanted, and we had the same rights thev ‘had
They are bad enough at best, and I am not willing to charge
J
2138
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
them witli being worse than they are. We could have, and did
have, all the experts we needed.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, X desire to say a t the beginning
that out of deference to the opinion of the Senator from Texas
I am perfectly w illing to substitute a select committee for the
Finance Committee. I am perfectly indifferent as to whether
it be a standing or a select committee which performs this task.
I am only concerned that the task be performed, and I cherish
as tender a solicitude for the health and the happiness of the
Finance Committee as any other member of this body.
Now, to the Senator from Montana I desire to say that i
disclaim that the charge of conspiracy or organized robbery has
escaped my lips. He w ill search the R ecord in vain to find
where I have given utterance to that charge in that form. 1
must confess, however, that the thought did come to my mind,
and that those words came to my lips, as they came to the lips
of the senior Senator from Montana, but they escaped his lips
instead of mine. But, sir, the circumstances suggest robbery
and suggest conspiracy, and they ju stify the epithets.
I appreciate the lecture read to me in this presence by the
senior Senator from Montana, and I may say in my self-defense
that my lack of knowledge possibly is due to the fact that the
senior Senator from Montana is a Member of this august assem
bly. We all can have free recourse to his universal informa
tion, and I understand that he adm its that he knows everything
about every question. Then why should the ordinary Member
like m yself concern him self w ith these arduous inquiries?
Mr. President, in ancient times, before the Diamond Match
trust was organized, the ancients kept a fire burning upon their
altar, so that those who chanced to lose it in their dwellings
could go to the temple and rekindle their fires. The Senator
from Montana is one of those splendid luminaries who shine
w ith original luster. The rest of us are mere satellites, which
must borrow the light which we reflect. But, like the sun itself,
the Senator has spots upon him. l i e em its darkness as well
as light. In one breath he suggests that the information is
before us now, and charges my colleague and myself for not
taking notice of that fact. In another breath he suggests it
could not be obtained in a less time than two years. Others
may concern themselves about which statement to believe.
There are those who will disbelieve both.
I would not say the Senator is an encyclopedia of informa
tion, nor shall I suggest that if there be any truth in the old
adage that ignorance is bliss the senior Senator from Montana
ought to be supremely bappy.
But, sir, the Senator from Montana says that the rule adopted
at Chicago was not a new rule, that it was not a new principle,
that the Republican party did not proclaim a new policy when
it declared for a tariff high enough to measure the difference
between wages here and abroad plus a reasonable profit.
That only confirms the suggestion just made. I say to the
senior Senator from Montana that it is a new rule; that it is
a new principle. I say to him that the national Republican
platform of 1S92 declared tliat the tariff rate ought to be high
enough to cover the difference between the labor cost abroad
and at home. There the platform stopped. The permanent
chairman of that convention, as I remember, was the late
martyr, McKinley, and if I remember correctly, the senior
Senator from Montana w as the chairman of the national Re
publican committee which conducted the campaign upon that
platform declaration. Can i t be possible that the Senator
does not remember the platform upon which he waged that
cam paign; or is it perhaps because the Republican party
admonished by the defeat which it suffered in the contest, fear
ing a similar calamity, has added this little appendix, “ plus a
reasonable profit?” And if it does not precipitate an acute
attack of appendicitis, the country may well marvel at its
failure.
Mr. President, another remark. The senior Senator from
New Hampshire [Mr. G allin ger ] has suggested that the coun
try is losing $10,000,000 daily by the delay upon the tariff bill.
Whenever that Senator deliberately pronounces judgment upon
a proposition I yield my assent. I regard him as the supreme
judge upon the subject. For be gravely advanced here the
other day the proposition that we on this side contended that
the duty was added to the domestic price. In the history of
the human I’aee nobody else every thought that. Nobody ever
said that in the history of the world. You may search the tariff
debates from the beginning of time to the present hour, and'
nobody ever suggested that tbe duty was added to the domestic
price. Nobody ever thought or ever suggested that anybody
ever thought or said such a thing except the senior Senator
from New Hampshire. He has a right to a copyright upon
that statement and a patent upon that invention.
M a y 18,
I w ill merely suggest to that Senator that it might be added as
a duty to the select committee, of which the Senator should
be a member, to ascertain, if this country is losing $10,000,000 a
day by the pendency of this bill, how long it would be before
there would not be a dollar left remaining in this country.
But those who are losing a million dollars a day have a mil
lion to lose, and if it be true, I regret it as much as any man
on this floor.
..
„
. ... , _
Mr GALLINGER. ITow much does the Senator think has
been and is being lost to tbe laborers and industries of this
country by delay in the consideration of th is bill ?
Mr GORE. That would be a matter of pure speculation.
Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator, I think, must have an
opinion on that point.
.
.
Mr. GORE. I have not figured it out w ith such absolute
accuracy as has the Senator from New Hampshire. The pen
dency of a tariff bill alw ays disturbs business more or less.
But I w ill suggest to the Senator that the people who are losing
a million dollars a day are not the only ones concerned in this
measure. The consumers as w ell as the trusts feel a slight
interest in the passage of this bill.
.
. ,
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, tbe Senator has raised a
question that has been frequently raised here, as to consumers.
There is one manufacturing establishment in New Hampshire
that employs 13,000 people. The chances are that they repre
sent at least twice that number o f persons, perhaps three times.
Several S enators. Four tim es.
Mr. GALLINGER. No; some of them are unmarried. Are
not they consumers, and is it not important th at they should
have employment to provide for their families? Who are the
consumers of this Country as distinguished from the producers,
including the men and women who earn wages?
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, this is not the first time that
question has been asked during this debate. The senior Sena
tor from Rhode Island, the chairman of the Finance Committee,
exclaimed in fine scorn a few days ago, “ Who is the consumer? ”
Mr. President, have the consumers of this country fallen into
such hands as this, that they not only have no regard for the
consumer, no concern for his welfare, but they even challenge
and deny his existence? H as it come to this, that a tariff
measure is being revised by those who have not even discovered
the consumer? I ask Senators in whose name and for whose
benefit is the tariff being revised, if not for the consumer?
Now, I answer the Senator’s question. The statement was
made a few days ago by the senior Senator from Massachusetts,
that 7,000,000 and more were concerned in the manufacturing
and mechanical industries of this country and the Senator
through some process of reasoning concluded that 30,000,000
were dependent upon those laborers. I would first say to the
Senator from Massachusetts that his statement included not
only those who were engaged in manufacturing, but those who
were engaged in agricultural pursuits, including carpenters,
brick masons, stone masons, and men who derive no benefit
from protection, but who suffer all its penalties; men who are
consumers and not protected manufacturers.
Who are the consumers? Edward Atkinson says there are
only a million people in this country who are directly benefited
by a protective tariff. But the census of 1900, more elaborate
than the senior Senator from M assachusetts suggested, says
there are a little more than 5,000,000 people engaged in manu
factories in this country. How that Senator arrived at 30,000,000 dependents I have been unable to cipher out. According to
that census there were 29,000,000 people engaged in gainful oc
cupations, and there were all told 75,000,000 people in the
country. I presume the Senator multiplied his 7,000,000 by
4, making 30,000,000, but if he adopts that rule, then, multi
plying 29,000,000 by 4, we have 130,000,000 people in the United
States, a self-evident misstatement of the facts.
I accept the census and will admit for the present argument
that there are 5,000,000 people engaged in manufactories, and
all those are benefited by a protective tariff. Multiply those by
2i, which is the rule we must adopt according to the census
return itself. Then you have about twelve or thirteen million
people who are benefited by this tariff—twelve or thirteen mil
lion out of 75,000,000. I say to the Senator from New Hamp
shire that the other 62,000,000 people are the consumers.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Oklaioma yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
•Mr. GORE. Certainly.
Mr. GALLINGER. During the years 1894, 1895, and 1896
:here were taken from the savings banks of New Hampshire, to
neet their immediate wants, $12,000,000 by the operatives, the
rarmers, and the laboring men who had deposited that money
1909
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
there. What has the Senator to say about those consumers?
That money was taken from the banks for the reason that the
kind of tariff the Senator is advocating threw them out of em
ployment and they had to go to the savings banks and take their
earnings, which they had deposited there, a few dollars at a
time, and use it to keep the wolf from the door and to keep their
wives and children from suffering. Now, who are the con
sumers? Were those people consumers?
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator has at
length discovered the consumers.
The senior Senator from Montana [Mr. Carter] stated a
minute ago that there were 2,000,000 people in this country out
of employment and many more million who have no accounts in
the savings banks or in any other banks, under a high Republican
protective tariff. I am informed Mr. Ilradstreet shows that the
aggregate amount of failures in 1907 and 1908 exceeded by
$140,000,000 the aggregate of failures during 1893 and 1894. I
would ask the senior Senator from New Hampshire if those
men had been taking their savings to those banks before the
Wilson tariff law passed in August, 1894? Did they not begin
Prior to that date?
Mr. GALLINGER. I will say to the Senator, Mr. President,
that it began when disaster came to the country as the result
of the success of the Democratic party in that election. I will
say, furthermore, to the Senator that with the large amount of
deposits in the savings banks of New Hampshire—and it is very
large—the average amount is $400 to each depositor. Almost
one-half of our people—men, women, and children—have de
posits in the savings banks, and they are mostly credited to the
operatives in our mills, to our laboring men, and to our farmers.
Mr. GORE, i t is well known to that Senator and all Senators
tu f there is an army of unemployed in this country to-day;
that soup houses were opened during the last year; that benevo
lent people distributed bread and other necessaries of life; and
that one great city passed an ordinance to give to the unem
ployed work upon public improvements in order to relieve the
distress of their situation.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----\ ask V,e Senator from New Hampshire this
question, it illustrates his position: Suppose the panic of 1907
had been delayed for thirteen months, and a Democratic Presi
dent had been chosen last November, would not every Repub
lican editor and every Republican Senator have ascribed the
panic to the election of a Democratic President?
w'llutu Tne
«nnIr‘ i ^ LLI?S? Elt' If tlle Senat°r will permit me, there is
I alludederence betwecn the recent panic and tlie Panic to which
Mr. GORE. I admit-----GALLINGER. During those three lean years of Dernoatic ascendency and low tariff our people took $4 000 000 a
year from the savings banks of my little State. Last year and
eachyyearr bef°re UK'y increased their deposits a bout ‘$600,000
Mr. BAILEY. And under this bill-----Mr. GORE. That is a splendid illustration of what a proH“m psM re«
tL e
-
• * •*«
Sena,ot ,rwn
O M a -
Mr. GORE. Certainly.
Mr. BAILEY. I simply want to suggest that under this bill
insfead
fk<> th+
i!t f 4’000,
’000 bank
out ofaccounts.
the Pockets of other people
nstead nf
of from
their
savings
M1; GALLINGER. We do not agree to that.
Mr. BAILEY. We do not agree to your statement that it was
a democratic triumph that produced the panic of 1893
Mr. GALLINGER. We have heard of the Minnesota idea
uio Iowa idea, and now we have the Texas idea.
Ml BAILEY. It is tlie right idea.
siwmm i0 1 iE‘ THe ,New Hampshire idea is that the community
d® 1'censed by law to put their hands in the pockets of
nl , / b0^ , G Se and '"crease their savings deposits at the ex
pense of the rest of this great Republic.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----Plie PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
Mr. GORE. Certainly.
Mr. GALLINGER. In another body not long ago a distin
guished gentleman sa id :
t. f The tariff bill Is nothing short of on outrage. The witches whom
Macbeth met on the heath never brewed a hell broth half so vile as
this legislative compound.
Then that gentleman plunged his hands into the caldron of
broth and pulled out a prize package inscribed “ Lumber ” and
voted for a duty on it.
2139
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I remember another passage from
that high tragedy. I remember that Macbeth himself had occa
sion to exclaim :
“ And be these juggling fiends no more believed,
That palter with us In a double sen se;
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope.”
No one in this body is better qualified to enact that role than
the senior Senator from New Hampshire. [Laughter.]
Mr. GALLINGER. That is precisely what this gentleman
did. He was arguing against protection, but he voted for a pro
tective duty, as the Senator will probably vote for a duty on
agricultural products.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I am not deceived by that mock
ing, miserable sham, and I will not betray the farmers of this
country with a Judas kiss. It is a glittering sham that de
ceives nobody. The man who believes in a tariff on corn ought
not to be allowed to run at large anywhere outside of the
United States Senate. [Laughter.]
Mr. GALLINGER. We will see when the vote is taken what
the Senator’s associates will do. I will ask the Senator if he
is going to vote for a duty on hides?
Mr. GORE. I Will not. Are you?
Mr. GALLINGER. I will answer that question when tha
time comes. [Laughter.] I am gratified to discover that there
is one real free trader on the other side of the Chamber.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, the term “ free trader” has no
terrors for me, and yet I am not, and could not be under exist
ing circumstances, a free trader. I doubt not, unless there be a
decided change in his opinions, that the Senator from New
Hampshire will vote for free hides and for free coal in order to
fire his factories.
,
, . , .
Mr GALLINGER. The Senator is not accurate m his state
ment. He ought to inform himself before he expresses an
opinion as to what I will do on this bill.
Mr. GORE. I tried to do that. The Senator declined to
inform me. I yield for that purpose now. [Laughter.]
Mr. GALLINGER. I will inform the Senator very promptly
that I shall vote for a duty on coal. Now, the Senator stated
that I would not do that.
, »
*. t
„T .
Mr. GORE. I am glad the work of the Senator from West
Virginia has had such a beneficial effect.
Mr G ALLINGER I will answer the Senator on the other
point' that I propose to hear the arguments on both sides con
cerning the duty on hides, and I will vote as my conscience
dictates at the time. I have not yet made up my mind
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, that word conscience comes
charmingly from the Senator's lips.
. . . . . .
Now, in passing upon this lumber duty, I know that side has
had frequent occasion to chide this side for loting for a pro
posed duty on lumber. I shall not vote for a duty on lumber,
and I will remind the Senator from New Hampshire that the
present duty on lumber is 10 per cent ad valorem, and the pro
posed duty, I am informed, is about 5 or G per cent ad valorem.
If that Senator desires the people of tins country to construct
their homes without exorbitant charges, and will include struc
tural steel, nails, window glass, and lumber in one schedule,
and fix a uniform rate of 0 per cent, I do not speak advisedly,
but I believe that he would command almost the unanimous
support of this side of the Chamber.
Sir, when men on this side vote for G per cent lumber, why
should you not agree to vote for a similar rate of duty on struc
tural steel? Either do that or else cease to banter this side
of the Chamber for its support of that which you are pleased
to allege is a protective tariff.
Now, Mr. President, back to the point. Senators on that side
are fond of sidetracks in this discussion. Alluding to the ten
millions, I want to say to the Senator from New Hampshire
that the men who are losing a million of dollars in this country
are not the retail merchants. My own observation and informa
tion has been that tlie millionaires of this country are not the
retail merchants. I know very few who have amassed that
fabulous sum. If I am correctly advised, the millionaires of
this country are the beneficiaries of a protective tariff. Take
the steel trust. We can enumerate several who have amassed
millions by your protection, perhaps more than all the million
aire retail merchants in the United States combined. Take
other protected interests. You will find those who by unrea
sonable profits have amassed millions; and the retail merchants
and the consumers have been the common victims—the fellowvictims of the same conspiracy and the same robberv I hovrom
the words.
'
uouow
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President-----Tlie PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from
lioma yield to the Senator from Rhode Island’
° ° kla'
Mr. GORE. Certainly.
'
2140
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE-.
Mr. ALDRICH. I ask tliat the unfinished business be laid be
fore the Senate.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning hour has ex
pired.
Mr. GORE. I w as not aware of that.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the well-settled prac
tice in the Senate, the resolution goes to the calendar.
Mr. GORE. I shall not insist, in view of the suggestion by
the senior Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. BAILEY. I ask unanimous consent that a vote be taken
on the resolution. I t w ill require but a moment or two.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas
asks unanimous consent that a vote be taken on the resolution.
Is there objection?
Mr. LODGE. The motion is to refer to the committee, I un
derstand.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is to refer to
the committee. Is there objection to the request of the Senator
from Texas? The Chair hears none.
Mr. GORE. I wish to say merely that I do not object to this
proceeding. I have not witnessed it before, but I yield, sir,
without complaint.
Mr. BAILEY. I supposed the Senator from Oklahoma wanted
a vote on his resolution, and I tried to get it.
Mr. GORE. And I should like to have it. I appreciate the
Senators’ suggestion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The request was made and
no objection w as made. A vote w ill now be taken.
Mr. GORE. I wish first to offer an amendment to strike out
the words “ Finance Committee or any subcommittee thereof ’
and insert-----
0
S-
1
ir.
ne
311.
is
the
and that the Senator from Nevada [Mr. N ixo n ] is paired with
his colleague [Mr. N ew lands ].
Mr. SIMMONS (after having voted in the negative). I de
sire to inquire whether the junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
Cla pp ] has voted.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that
he has not.
Mr. SIMMONS. I withdraw my vote.
Mr. NELSON. The junior Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
Clapp ] is unavoidably detained from the Chamber. If he were
present, he would vote “ yea.”
Mr. SIMMONS. I have withdrawn my vote.
The result was announced—yeas 50, nays 20, as fo llo w s:
Aldrich
Borah
Brandegec
Briggs
Brown
Bulkeley
Burkett
Burnham
Burrows
Burton
Carter
Clark, Wyo.
Crane
Bacon
Bailey
Bankhead
Bristow
Chamberlain
Clay
Crawford
Culberson
YEAS— 50.
Gamble
Guggenheim
Ilale
Perkins
Piles
Root
Scott
Heyburn
Johnson, N. Dak. Smith, Mich.
Smoot
Jones
Stephenson
Ivean
Sutherland
Lodge
Warner
McCumber
Warren
Nelson
Wetmore
Oliver
Page
Penrose
NAYS— 29.
Smith, S. C.
McLaurin
Daniel
Stone
Martin
Fletcher
Taliaferro
Money
Foster
Taylor
Overman
Frazier
Tillm an
Owen
Gore
Paynter
Hughes
Rayner
Johnston. Ala.
Smith, Md.
La Follette
NOT VOTING— 12.
Richardson
McEnery
Clapp
Shively
Newlands
Clarke, Ark.
Simmons
D a v is
Cullom
Cummins
Curtis
Ilepew
Dick
Dillingham
Dixon
Dolllver
du Pont
Elkins
F lint
Frye
Gallinger
Mr. ALDRICH. That is not in order.
Mr. GALLINGER. That was not the agreement.
everidge
ourne
Mr. GORE. And to substitute “ a select committee consisting
radlev
of four Republicans and three Democrats.”
the Committee on
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Finance.
Mr. ALDRICH. The question is on the motion to refer.
IMPORTS OF TOBACCO.
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator w ill not make any progress by an
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a com
objection of that kind, because the Senator understands that
when I preferred the request for unanimous consent to vote munication from the Secretary of State, transmitting, in re
on it I preferred it in view of the interchange that had occurred sponse to a resolution of the 20th ultimo, a statement relative
between the Senator from Oklahoma and m y se lf; and the Sena to the duties per pound which are levied and collected by fortor readily acceded to the suggestion that we propose to have eio-n governments on imports of tobacco from the United States,
the investigation made by a special committee instead of the and respecting which countries prohibit importations thereof,
Finance Committee. The Senator from Oklahoma said that was etc. (S. Doc. No. 50), which, on m otion of Mr. D a niel , w as or
entirely acceptable to him.
dered to lie on the table and be printed.
Mr. GORE. Yes.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS REFERRED.
Mr. ALDRICH. That motion is not in order.
The following joint resolutions were severally read twice by
Mr. BAILEY. The Senator from Oklahoma can change his
their titles and referred to the Committee on M ilitary A ffairs:
resolution.
H. J. Res. 54. Joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of
___.Sils.. nACITM TTo r>on mnrUfv His rpsohltion.
War to loan cots, tents, and appliances for the use of the fortySenate resolution 45.
third national encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic
m . VM, it- has been repeatedly asserted and generally admitted in
at Salt Lake City, U ta h ; and
h ^ s e n a t e during the debate on the pending tariff bill that current
H J Res. 55. Joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of
v?/>o«in the United States are unreasonable and exorb itant; and
w h e re a s* there Is a radical and irreconcilable division of opinion as
War to loan certain tents for use at the tercentenary celebra
resnonsible for these extortionate prices; and
tion of the discovery of Lake Champlain, to be held in Burling
° W hereat'there are those who believe that the manufacturers are pnaari^y responsible, and others who believe th at the w holesale and retail
ton, Vt., in July, 1909.
lew bereas i^ is^ im p o rta n f th at the truth should be known, th at the ;
nnocent should be Vindicated and the guilty alone charged w ith the
ex-
“i i o i S " I K ^ i S S k S r & i & S . o ,
, subeonimittee ,
R esolved, J nat
reDresentatives of both political parties, are
S y ’instructed to investigate and report to the Senate at the earliest
ver.
)0First. TheTm port prices of various articles of general and ordinary t
Second." The wholesale prices of said articles.
of a
M ay 18
d
r hir<th TThereprice^l l ofS similar lirtiefes of domestic production asd
ix fd ch arged, and deceived by the manufacturers thereof and the w h o le s
sale and retail dealers therein.
le
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The nendhisr^Vde^seiiiitof:
.i
i \ , ■,i i’o
-1.i_ic suggestion I made a moment ago.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing
to the motion to refer the resolution to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. GORE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded
to call the roll.
Mr. RICHARDSON (when his name w as called). I am
paired w ith the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Claeke],
The roll call w as concluded.
Mr. CURTIS. I desire to announce that the Senator from
Oregon [Mr. B ourneI is paired w ith the Senator from Arkan
sas [Mr. D avis ] ; that the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. B babley ] is paired w ith the Senator from Indiana [Mr. S hively ] j
THE TARIFF.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the
Senate the unfinished business, which is House bill 143S.
The Senate, a s in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con
sideration of the bill (II. R. 143S) to provide revenue, equalize
duties, and encourage the industries of the United States, and
for other purposes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is on
the amendment of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Stone ] to
paragraph 151.
t
,
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, before the vote is taken I desire
to occupy a little w hile in animadverting on some matters dis
cussed on yesterday and into which I have examined somewhat
since the adjournment last evening.
However, Mr. President, before doing that I desire to say that
it seems to me that the Finance Committee, and others who
think as the majority of that committee do, keep in mind while
framing this bill but one class of people—the manufacturers.
They seem to lose sight, at least to a large degree, of all others.
The manufacturers seem to be the subjects of their sole and
supreme care. I am sure I am as anxious as any man to see
the manufacturing industries of the country prosperous. I
recognize the importance of manufacturing, and that manufac
turing is one of the great arms of our national activity and
industrial stren gth; but, Mr. President, there are others equally
entitled to consideration a t our hands. The wholesale mer-
1909,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE
By Mr. BRADLEY:
A bill (S. 2409) to grant an honorable discharge to Alfred
Childers; and
A bill (S. 2470) to correct the military record of John Tudor;
to the Committee on Military Affairs.
A bill (S. 2471) for the relief of Elizabeth Bevins;
A bill (g. 2472) for the relief of the Baptist Church of
Schoolfield, Ivy'.';
,.4 ,
2473) for the relief of the estate of Matthew A.
McCain; and
r m h A 11.
2474) for the relief of the estate of Richard
ivvnite; to the Committee on Claims.
A bill (g. 2475) granting an increase of pension to Sam M.
Anderson;
n /<?• 247d) granting a pension to Susan Jones;
a h-ii Vcl 2477) granting a pension to Lewis W. Dillion; and
D1- i
2478) granting a pension to William Lee; to the
committee on Pensions.
2 351
think we ought to be a little careful about committing the
Senate to a recital of facts without being pretty certain whether
they are accurate.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I have been informed, upon what I
suppose to be very reliable authority, that the German Govern
ment furnished this information upon the request of this Gov
ernment. I care nothing at all about the preamble to the reso
lution ; I am entirely willing that the preamble shall be stricken
out. I desire to secure for the Senate the information which
I am certain is in the possession of the Secretary of State.
Mr. ROOT. I quite agree with the purpose of the Senator
from Wisconsin.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I should like to inquire whether
the Senator from Wisconsin has in mind getting information
relating to the wage in other countries than Germany?
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. The purpose of my resolution is to
secure information with respect to wages in various occupations
in Germany. I am advised that the German Government some
AMENDMENTS TO THE TABIFF BILL.
months ago transmitted to this Government a statement of the
ftBABLEY submitted two amendments intended to be wages paid in various occupations in Germany. We are en
proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 143S) to provide revenue, deavoring to fix duties in this tariff bill upon a basis of the
equalize duties, and encourage the industries of the United difference in cost of production of foreign and domestic manu
tiIatf Sl ,and for other purposes; which were ordered to lie on factures. A statement by the German Government upon this
the table and lie printed.
subject ought to be very helpful to the Senate at this time,
n rm A T1ABIACEBRO submitted an amendment intended to be and I offer the resolution with a view of obtaining this im
portant information without delay.
“ t0-,the biH (H - R‘ 1438 > to Pr0Yide revenue,
The Senator from Michigan will remember that we were
. d^
aad encourage the industries of the United
the tohmnd
0t,ler Purposes; which was ordered to lie on discussing the subject of razors a few days ago, with a view of
Tue table and be printed.
determining what duty should be fixed upon that product. In
nntfwi ELKINS submitted an amendment intended to be pro- the course of that debate it was asserted by some member of
h
J ,hi“ t0 the bill (H. It. 1438) to provide revenue the Committee on Finance that the average wages paid in
ajuahze duties, and encourage the industries of the United Germany were from $4 to $6.45 per week in the manufacture of
razors. The following morning the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
. ^ ‘a f ^ ^ o ^ r 1’08081 'vl,idi
Stone] submitted a statement, which he said had been handed
to
him by a former Member of the House of Representatives, said
OIVIL-SEKVICE EMPLOYEES FKOM KENTUCKY.
to be employed at the present time by the Finance Committee.
mediated^onshlera.tion
* resolution> for which I ask im- That statement represented that the German Government had
transmitted information to this Government giving the wages
The resolution (g. Res. 52) was read, as follows:
paid in various occupations, including the manufacture of razors.
It purported to give a table which showed the actual wages
commumcateTtoa theh Senate at ^ l ^ e S l W iSSi° ntiiS , hereby directed to paid at the present time to be from 61 to 111 per cent higher
names of those now In the tervfce
P£ C£ Cal0 ?ay> a list of the
Including the city or town a^d
to the State of Kentucky, than the German wage rate as stated by a member of the Com
claims as his or her resid en t nTwi .n L C<iUPty wWch clerk or emrRovee mittee on Finance in the course of the debate on the day before.
This was a very great discrepancy, and but emphasized the ne
is
cessity of the Senate’s very grfeat need of accurate and reliable
information to guide us in onr efforts to determine the cost of
• A
S ' S S J f , " 1” ob)ectlon ,0 « » * » • « production.
4 4i l J' 4 ain not ut all certain that the resolution doe5
It occurred to me that if there were reliable information upon
not in spirit countervail the order of the Senate as to legisln the German wage rate which had come to this Government under
b eTb“ ® ’ hut there being, perhaps, some doubt about it, and some sort of official sanction from the German Government as
tfon r l l i i f ™ - f 'll one having any objection to the resolu to its correctness, it would assist greatly in our deliberation to
tion, I will not raise the point of order on i t
have that inform.«tion before the Senate. I could not conceive
agreed 5£SOlution was coasidered by unanimous consent, and of anyone objecting to our having the benefit of it.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. My object in rising was simply
WAGES IN GERMANY.
this, that I have given some attention to the question of wages
_ A rFOLLETTE. Mr. President, I submit a resolutio
in various foreign countries, and I have particularly in mind
Wm,C.1 £ send t0 the desk, and I ask for its present consideratior now the wage that prevails in the iron and steel industry in
Ihc Secretary read the resolution (S. Res. 51), as follows :
Sweden. I know that that information is accessible to the
'
Senate resolution 51.
Senate, if desired.
It seems to me that the preamble to the resolution indicates
G
traadoofbyStat
thl
anovernm
official entf^^sStt”
statement inaGsevera?emont^s
r e l a t l A t o t h e w - n ^ ^ ^e« 'etary
a desire upon the part of the Senate to proceed with legislation
workmen in various occupations; and ° 'vage8 paid in Germany t
in the light of information that is obtained from Germany. I
Whereas the Senate is from day to dav
__*
difference in the cost of production between^foreira im ltdomTc<Htain 111 dislike very much to have it go out that we are leveling our
attention upon the wage scale of any particular country. It
factures in order to determine the just rato of (h itr tn
c ,m'l n i
foreign imports, and it is of the hlghest im pLtence t l ^ hT A I up°
seems to me that the President might properly be asked for such
information as the department may have from all countries.
f i c t i o n s ? bCf0r° R Et th‘S tim° 811 faCtS Whlch “ ‘ l ald U S *
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. If the Senator will permit me to in
Resolved, That the President, if not incompatible in h i,
with the public interest, be. and he is hereby, requested to transmit ?
terrupt him, I am very certain that the language of the pream
the Senate the statement of the German Government in reliti??8?^ *^
ble, if he observed it closely, bears no such construction as
wages paid to German workmen, for the use of the Senate in
that. It simply recites the fact that such information has been
tion with its consideration of the pending tariff bill.
connec
obtained.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the nresen
consideration of the resolution?
York, that we should not make as a statement of f;
Mr. ALDRICH. I ask that it may be read again.
was obtained upon the request of this Government, has soi
The Secretary again read the resolution.
point to it, because on that proposition I have no official inf
Mr. IIALE. My attention was diverted. Has the resolution mation.
the usual clause that the President shall communicate the
information at his discretion, if it is not incompatible with the consin SMITH of Michigan. I think if the Senator from W
public service?
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. But I am entirely willing to h*i
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. It bas, I will,state to the Senator from
stricken from the resolution the preamble and allow it A
Maine.
put upon its passage. There ought not to be any objection
Mr. KEAN. That clause is in the resolution.
Mr. ROOT. I suggest to the Senator from Wisconsin whether m tto n
I”'8“ e0 *Le resolu,1°n “ 'H is for t S ? n f
the recital may not be a little strong, that there was a formal
Mr.
SMITH
of
Michigan. I should like to spe thn
request by our Government upon tbo German Government? I
stricken out. and I should like to have tte r e S n tio n S l “ i
2352
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
such information as is obtainable through our consular service,
which, undoubtedly, the President can readily transmit.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I hope that the Senator from Michi
gan, if he desires that information, w ill call for it in a resolulion which he may frame and present him self. I trust he w ill
itot delay either the passage of this resolution or the transm is
sion of these facts to the Senate by calling for a mass of other
m aterial that might postpone a response to this resolution for
some weeks.
Mr. HALE. W ill the Senator from W isconsin yield to me
for a moment?
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Certainly.
Mr. HALE. I merely w ish to suggest that the conditions as
recited by the resolution perhaps apply only to Germany, and
do not perhaps apply to other nations, Sweden among others.
Therefore I think there can be no objection to the passage of
the resolution calling upon the President, w ith the lim itation
that it is to be transm itted if it is compatible w ith the public
service, for this particular inform ation respecting German labor,
and that it should be sent to the Senate. It seems to me that
as the resolution recites a condition applicable to Germany,
the Senator from M ichigan should be content to let the resolu
tion go through and then introduce any resolution touching
Sweden that he finds the facts justify. I do not know that
Sweden has sent in, by request, as Germany has, statem ents
about labor, and therefore it seems to me that it is proper
that this resolution should be confined to G erm any; and if the
Senator from Michigan finds there information from Sweden
he can offer a separate resolution.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I understand the Senator from
Wisconsin proposes to strike out the preamble and let the reso
lution stand in that form.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Yes, sir.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. H e prefers to do that.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I amend it in that form.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. The Senator prefers to do that
rather than include any other country?
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I do.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Then certainly I w ill not object.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill read the reso
lution as now presented by-the Senator from Wisconsin.
The Secretary read as follow s:
M a y 25
Mr. GALLINGER. It seems to me, Mr. President, it w ill not
be of much interest at this late day, but I w ill not object.
There being no objection, the order w as reduced to writing
and agreed to, as follow s:
O rdered, T hat 500 copies of a report on the total cost and labor cost
of transform ation in the production of certain articles in the United
States, Great Britain, and Belgium, by Carroll D. Wright, Commissioner
of Labor, December, 1898, be printed for the Senate document room.
HOUSE BILL REFERRED.
H. R. 9135. An act to raise revenue for the Philippine Islands,
and for other purposes, w as read tw ice by its title and referred
to the Committee on the Philippines.
TOBACCO TAX.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I simply rise for the pur
pose of announcing that on Friday morning next, after the reg
ular order of business, I desire to address the Senate on the
proposed repeal of the G cents tax on lea f tobacco.
DUTY ON IRON ORE.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, a day or two since, Col. W il
liam J. Bryan w as interviewed at Toledo, Ohio, and the inter
view has been reported through the Associated Press. I w ill
read a brief extract from that interview, printed in the W ash
ington H erald :
As to the Democrats who voted for the imposition of duties, they
have, as a rule, defended their conduct on the ground th at the duties
voted for were revenue duties, and they have not been high duties.
Measured on an ad valorem basis, the duty on lumber and on iron ore
are but a small portion of the price. I think th at the Democrats who
voted for the duty made a mistake.
Mr. President, I have had the honor and pleasure of sustain
ing cordial and rather intim ate relations w ith Mr. Bryan for a
good many years, and those relations still exist. I can speak,
therefore, in a feeling of respect and kindliness regarding him.
And at this point I might say that it has become a habit for
our friends on the other side of the Chamber to speak dis
paragingly and sometimes alm ost sneeringly of Mr. Bryan.
That is not a difficult or dangerous thing to do from this place
of security. It does not require much courage to attack under
such circumstances. I doubt whether Senators who speak in
this tone would adopt it if Mr. Bryan had a seat in th is body
and could reply for himself.
I do not hesitate to say—indeed, I take pride in saying—that
R esolved, T hat the President, if not incompatible in his judgment I entertain for Mr. Bryan not only a high respect, but an
w ith the public interest, be, and he is hereby, requested to transm it to affectionate regard. I believe that he is one of the most master
the Senate the statem ent of the German Government in relation to the fu l and commanding intellectualities who has appeared in
wages paid to German workmen, for the use of the Senate in connection
American public life during this generation.
w ith its consideration of the pending tariff bill.
Moreover, there is none to question the entire integrity of
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Upon the suggestion of the Senator
from New York, I w ill amend the resolution further by insert his opinions, the honesty of the man, his high character, or
ing after the words “ the German Governm ent” the words “ or h is sincerity. But, Mr. President, all men are fallible, all men
its officers.” The document may have come from the officers make m istakes, and Mr. Bryan makes m istakes like other men.
o f the German Government and, technically, may not have I have not alw ays agreed w ith him, but I have never doubted
his sincerity. I think in th is matter he is mistaken, honestly
been received from the German Government.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill read the reso s o ; and when he says he thinks that the Democrats who voted
against free iron ore made a mistake, I do not agree w ith him.
lution as now modified.
Mr. President, I am one of the 18 Democrats who voted to
The S ecretary. After the words “ the German Government ”
insert the words “ or its officers,” so as to make the resolution put a duty of 25 cents per ton on iron ore. The 18 Democrats
who voted that way are Messrs. B acon , B a il e y , B a n k h e a d ,
read:
R esolved, T hat the President, if not incompatible in his judgment C h a m be r l a in , Cl ay , D a n ie l , F letcher , F oster, I razier ,
w ith the public interest, he, and he is hereby, requested to transm it to J ohnston of Alabama, M cE nery , M a r tin , P aynter , S im m o n s ,
the Senate the statem ent of the German Government, or its officers, in S tone , T aliaferro , T aylor , and T il l m a n . Ten Democrats
relation to the wages paid to German workmen, for the use of the Sen voted to put iron ore on the free list, "viz, Messrs. Clarke of
ate in connection w ith its consideration of the pending tariff bill.
Arkansas, C ulberson , G ore, H u g h e s , N e w lands , Overm an ,
The resolution as modified w as agreed to.
R ayner , S h ivel y , S m it h of Maryland, and S m it h of South
LEAF TOBACCO.
Carolina. How the 5 Democrats who were absent or paired, and
Mr. FRAZIER. I ask for a reprint of Senate Document No. therefore are not recorded, would have voted, I do not know.
390, Hearings on the R elief of Tobacco Growers. I am advised Up to this time there are only two questions upon which Demo
that the print has been entirely exhausted, and there is very cratic Senators have divided to any appreciable extent—on iron
ore and lumber; in fact, as a rule they have voted together
great demand for this document.
There being no objection, the order w as reduced to writing and the same way. Mr. President, when the question of putting
a duty on iron ore w as before the Senate, I was hesitant and
and agreed to, as fo llo w s:
Ordered, T hat 500 copies of the H earings on the R elief of Tobacco somewhat uncertain as to what w as the right and proper thing
Growers before a subcommittee on internal revenue of the Committee on to do; but in the end the best judgment of which I am capable,
W avs and Means, House of Representatives, Fifty-eighth Congress, not only as a party man, but as one desirous of promoting the
second session, February 4 and 25, 1904, be printed for the Senate
document room.
. „ best policy for the public welfare, I conceived it to be my duty
V0 vote as I did. I believe in the doctrine of a revenue tariff,
COST OF PRODUCTION.
.... _Mr. OWEN. I ask the consent of the Senate to have a report md this whether considered from the standpoint of the con
/ of Carroll D. Wright, on the cost of production of certain arti- stitutional power vested in Congress to levy tariffs or from the
| cles in the United States, Great Britain, and Belgium, reprinted standpoint of economic policy. I believe that tariffs should be
l as u document (S. Doc. No. 20, 55th Cong., 3d sess.).
____ /levied w ith the primary object of producing a needed public
V'- ~ yjr. GALLINGEIl. I w ill ask the Senator what is the date revenue, and that the duties should be as widely distributed
and laid upon as many articles as possible, always, of course,
of that report?
having in view the needs of the Government; and I hold that
-AJr OWEN. Eighteen ninety-eight.
the burden should be made lightest upon articles of common use
Mi*. GALLINGER. Eleven years ago?
and heaviest upon others.
- Mr. OWEN. Yes.
1909
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE
I have talked much longer than I expected, and longer than I
wanted to, and I know I have very imperfectly covered this
question, because it is very intricate.
. I have studied it as best I could in the leisure moments I
nave had during the last month, since the consideration of this
hill was begun. I am here asking the Senate not to injure a
legitimate American enterprise, not to destroy any American
institution that lia s been built up under the protective policy,
uot to antagonize the findings of the Committee on Finance;
but to change this phraseology, thereby permitting the American
market to be opened somewhat to the sugars that might come
m from other countries, or in competition with the sugar re
fineries. So I yield the floor, believing that the Senate will
recognize the force of these facts which I have so imperfectly
presented, and hoping that this reduction will be made.
Mr. President, I ask leave to print some tables that I did
not read.
Llie \ ICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request
rili Senator from Kansas? The Chair hears none.
The tables are as follow s:
2409
Sugar im ported into the United States from H awaii, Porto Rico, Cuba,
and the Philippines.
Fiscal year.
1898....................
1899....................
1900................. .
1901.....................
1902....................
1903.....................
1904.....................
1905.....................
1006.....................
1907.....................
1908.....................
Hawaii.
Porto Rico.
Short tons. Short tons.
49,209
249,883
53,601.3
231,149.94
30,279.09
252,355.55
08,000.9
345,440.42
91,908.52
360,270.68
113,076.75
387,412.71
129,615.8
368,246.05
135,659.99
416,360.69
373,301.32 205,272.3
204,074.99
410,507.41
538,785.32 234,602.54
Cuba.
All other
Philippines. countries.
Short tons. Short tons.
220,113
14,745
331,771.83
25,812.64
352,727.96
24,745.27
549,702.18
2,348.67
492,107.54
5,712
1,197,983.89
9,380.07
1,409,778.88
23,514.95
962,421.16
27,499.99
1,261,295.25
26,362.34
1,583,081.99
35,253.15
1,231,031.95
14,731.4
Short tons.
811,009.99
1,347,789.58
1,392,934.4
1,435,454.07
1,515,957.94
900,703.49
967,842.47
774,705.86
578,675.63
548,183.12
524,279.6
N ote.— F rom Senate Document No. 15, Sixty-first Congress, first ses
sion, pages 2-3, letter from A ssistant Secretary Commerce and Labor.
Figures, 1898, from Statistical Abstract, 1907, page 719, also 1904;
figures for 1901, Porto Rico, Statistical Abstract, 1907, page 719 ; Porto
Rico, 1899-1900, Statistical Abstract, 1904, page 351 ; Cuba, 1899-1905,
Statistical Abstract, 1904. page 351; Philippines, 1899-1903, Statistical
Production of cane sugar in the United States.
___
Short tons. Abstract, 1904, page 353; other countries, 1899-1904, Statistical Ab
stract, 1907, page 719.
lo o 8-1859_______ _
<)1Rr>47
Consumption of sugar in the United States.
il e o = l i § ? ------------------: : : : : : : : : --------------------: : : : : : : : : : : : : : 133,’ 325
Calendar year1865-1806_
1860 -1 8 0 7 .__ : : -------------------------------------------------------------------1867- 1868___
"
1868 - 1809 _
18701871-
1871___ I ! --------------------------------------------------------------1872 _
1875- 1876—
_
1876 - 1877_________
Sn’ 849
Consumption consisted of:
Domestic eano (Louisiana and
T exas), long tons......... .............
Domestic beet, long tons............
Maple, long tons..........................
Molasses sugar, long tons--------
1878 - 1879 . . .
„ .‘ 9- 521
1879 - 1880
#10
1880- 1 8 8 1 ..
...
} 9 3, 939
1881 - 1882________
_
112,651
1882- 1883 _ _
I
— 5,537
Total domestic, long tons---159, 373
1883 - 1884________
1884 - 1885_____
_
J 2 i ' 472
1885 - 1886_____
_
112,981 Hawaii (cane), long tons...................
1886- 1 8 8 7 . . . ____ I
f51, 377 Porto Rico (cane), long tons...........
1887 - 1888___________
9S>. 941 Philippine Islands (cane), long tons.
1888- 1889____
J8I- 92? Cuba (cane), long tons......................
1889 - 1890 __________ I .
478
Total on which tariff conces18 9 0 - 1891 . . .
7 52, 883
t 48>i*8^
1891- 1892____________ :Z“"
1892- 1893___
_
J82’£99
18 9 3 - 1894____________ I !
iZ b 984 Foreign raw cane, long tons............
"
41 •> Foreign raw beet, long tons............
1894 - 1895_______________
1895 - 1890__ _____
:;54’ 999 Foreign refined beet, long tons____
1890-1897__________ I I .
"A7- 877 Foreign refined cane, long tons_____
1897 - 1898 __
V,?3'588
Total foreign on which full
1898- 1899____ ? ,& si®
duty assessed, long tons__
1899 - 1900---------------------T /8' 829
1900 - 1901____________ _
Amount refined b y 1901 - 1902— __________ I
o?V’ ?.U
American Sugar Refining Co.,
19 0 2 - 1903
:I24'32j»
long t o n s ....................................
1903 - 1904__________________ : : : --------------------------------------------S i 8- 998
Independent refiners, long tons_
Beet-sugar factories, long tons.
1905- 1906------------------------------------- 1 ! ----------------------------------- "49- 798
Hawaiian cane factories, long
19 0 6 - 1907-----------------------9? r” oA5
tons......................................
1907- 1908------------------------------------- : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : i s ! o io
Foreign refiners, long tons. "I
N ote.— From Statistical Ahstract. 1907, page 163.
Total amount refined sugar,
Sugar production.
long tons .............................
Hawaii.
Fiscal year.
Cuba.
Porto Rico. Philippines. Per cent refined sugar manufactured
byAmerican Sugar Refining Co__
Short tons. Short tons. Short tons. Short tons.
Independent refiners.........
283,80G.72
385.691.20
Beet-sugar factories......................
189S-1S99____ _________
60,285
104,160
289,513.52
345,563.16
Hawaiian cane factories........ .
189911)00_______
39.200
70,319
300,037.44
Foreign refiners.............. ......
712,158.72
1900-1901
- ~
89,600
62,048
355,610.03
952,202.72
Consumed
in raw or plantation
1901-1902 ..........................
95.200
88,073
state, long tons................................
437.9S9.44 1,118,743.36
1902-1908...........................
95.200
100,800 National Sugar Refining Co. pro
367,478.39 1,165,053.36
145,600
91,060
426,245.12 1,302,848.96
duction (included with independ
162,400
119,700
ent refiners), long ton s..................
429,212.00 1,320,198.S8
238,560
162,998 Average
difference between raw and
440,015.52 1,593,993.76
235,200
162,060
refined, per pound....... ....................
521,122.56 1,314,000.00
243,010
168,000
H awaii.— Figures, J»9» to i )_—•>, compiiea trom W illett & Urn’
December 10, 1903, page 3 ; 1902-3 to 1908, compiled from W illitt "
Gray, November 25, 1908, page 409.
Cuba,.— Figures, 1898 to 1903-4, compiled from Farmers’ Bullet!
No. 30, 1904, page 80 ; 1903-4 to 1908, compiled from Farmers’ Bulb
tin No. 52, 1908, page 46.
P o rto P ico. — Figures, 1898 to 1903-4, compiled from Senate Doci
ment No. 250, Fifty-ninth Congress, llrst session, pages 1 1 -1 2 ; 1903to 1908, compiled from Farmers’ Bulletin No. 52, 1908, page 46
P h ilip p in e s. — Figures prior to 1903-4 are exports.
(Figures con
piled from W illett & Gray’s Sugar Journal.)
1907.
1906.
1905.
2,993,979
2,864,013
2,032,216
129,960
231,797
134,946
4.538
8.806
4.876
390,888
493,200
11,000
5,910
264,968
375,410
10.000
6,249
267,947
300,317
6,000
8,150
334,522
220,722
9,000
11,880
1908.
tjJ’ iKn
ISo
or,’ =en
In ’In?Total consumption of sugar in
United States, long tons---------- 3,185,789
oq’ f IS Compared with preceding year (in
?9’I * crease), long tons....... ...................
191,810
Compared with preceding year (in
6.406
crease), per cent............................. —
900,998
656,627
582,414
576,124
453,250
185,085
45,089
. 916,742
418,102
212,853
10,700
1,340,400
343,857
193,978
41,900
1,165,994
376,497
124,928
14,673
1,101,611
1.600,166
1,982,055
1,745,729
1,617,709
543,518
139,363
1,687
57
347,509
6,780
949
59
357,057
175,827
2,734
252
412,560
22,161
1,844
1,818
684,625
355,297
535,870
438,383
1,364,286
1,147,712
492,969
1,401,061
1,064,827
375,358
1,408,503
1,031,831
300,059
1,325,692
939,557
200,477
15,442
1,744
1,674
1,008
10,964
2,986
17,292
3,662
3,022,153
2,843,928
2,760,343
2,506,680
45.14
37.98
16.31
.51
.06
49.27
37.44
13.19
.06
.04
51.03
37.38
10.87
.61
.11
52.89
37.48
8.79
.69
.15
163,636
150,051
103,670
125,536
315,000
306,000
326,000
296,000
$0,884
$0,833
$0,829
$0,978
note.— From W illett & Gray’s Weekly Statistical Sag
nal, January 9, 1908, page 10; January 7, 1909, page 2.
Office
of the
Secretary
W ashington, D. C., M av W iann
Dear S ir : I regret that the table showing the average
per ton of beets in the various lx'et-urr,diicin<r 8 iV f^ n =,o^ l , f, SURilr
my letter of the 24th instant, requires^ correction i n t b ’a l b?Ui tcd with
By a clerical mistake, the s ta t^ tlc fs h o w in go the ‘<aVorn«
yearsaverage flve
sugar
in
2410
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
b e e ts ” were inserted instead of the “ average extraction of sugar based
on w eight of beets.” A corrected table is herewith inclosed.
Very respectfully,
_ _
J ambs W ilson , Secretary.
lion . J oseph L. B ristow ,
'
U n ited S ta tes Senate.
A verage yield of sugar per ton (2,000 poun ds) of beets in the principal
beet-grow ing S ta tes.
_____
(Figures i» ita lics incorrect.)
M a y 26,
the d iagram to which he refers went into the R ecord or n o t;
but if we yield in this one instance, I do not know when we can
stop. I call to mind now at least half a dozen Representatives
who have made sim ilar requests,, and they have all been con
sistently refused.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I acquiesce in the wisdom of the
view o f the Committee on Printing that, as an ordinary matter,
the R ecord ought not to be encumbered w ith various diagrams
which are not of great importance, because they are somewhat
Wis Other Total,
Cali Colo Idaho. Michi Ne
Year.
United
con
difficult to put in the R ecord. It takes some time to have the
Utah.
fornia. rado,
gan. braska.
States.
States.
sin.
diagrams prepared, and for that reason, and because of the cost,
I agree with the committee that it is not wise, as a rule, to use
U s.
such diagrams. But here is a case where there has been a
Lbs. U s.
Lbs.
Lbs.
U s.
U s.
Lbs.
Lbs.
205.7
1899-1900.... 244. 4 (a)
(a)
163.7
(a)
184.0
t°)
wholesale fraud upon the United States which ought to be un
1900-1901
210 7
•212.1
265.4 219.7
1901-1902__ 210. 0 219.7
214.4 derstood, and th is diagram shows in the clearest possible way
211.2 214.7 217.4 207.1 207.9
231. f exactly how it w as committed. I desire, therefore, that this
1902-1903.... 248. 3 244.7
212.8
215.6 225.9 204.1 221.0
230. E shall be an exception to the usual rule, and I ask unanimous
1968-1904__ 249.4 215.9 2io. 5 220. 0 253.4 236.5 215.7 233.1
306.9
1904-1905__ Sit. 8 312.8 297.6 302.6
SOI. 6 m . 5 290.8 S1S.0
306.6 •consent that it be permitted.
1908-1 SOB__ S1A. 5 29U. 2 289.5 S1S.0 256.0 280.6 SOO.O SIS. 6
Mr. SMOOT. I do not think there is one member of the Com
298.0
1900-1907__ SSU. 0 295.0 SS8.0 290.0 215.0 290.0 272.0 28S.0
1907-1908..... $58.0 306.0 S56.0 SOS. 0
316.0 m ittee on Printing who doubts for a moment that these frauds
326.0 SOS. 0 302.0
1908-1909..,. 353.2 277.0 S16.8 352.2
315.8
305.
U
282.0
SS5.lt(«)
have been committed.
■■"Mr. OWEN. Oh, I suppose not.
Correction.
Mr. SMOOT. I for one say now that I condemn them just as
1904-1905.... 250.0 222.0 240.0 234.0 232.0 236.0 218.0 246.0
233.8 strongly as does the Senator from Oklahoma.
1905-1900__ 287.4 209.4) 213.8 246. 4 193.2 217.4 229.8 230.0
234.8
Mr.
OWEN. It is not a m atter of condem nation; it is a \
1900-1907.... 276.2 224; 8 248.0 220.0 230.6 211.2 222.0 180.8
228.4
1907-1908.... 301.2 222.2 311.0 243.2
246.0 matter of publicity.
(a)
252.0 247.0 227.4
1908-1909.... 277.8 220.6 1 254.4 279.0
249.4
244.4
234.0 266.0
— Mr. SMOOT. Of course it is in the power of the ScnrrtffTo
—w instruct the Committee on Printing to have the cut inserted
“ N ot separately shown.
W the R ecord. But the very next Senator or the very n e x t
air. OWEN. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate for
or_a Representative who has something that seems especially imfew moments only. On Alonday I called the attention of the
lortant to him w ill make the same request, and I certainly
Senate to a critical, painstaking review of the frauds which
ope the Senate w ill stand by the action taken by the Comhave been perpetrated upon the people of the United States by i fittee on Printing.
the American Sugar Refining Company. It was an account of *4-Mr. OWEN. I ask unanimous consent.
the recent frauds, in which they confessed themselves guilty of
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection?
having stolen not less than $2,000,000, and paid it to the Treas
Mr. GALLINGER. I object.
ury of the United States, having been detected in this fraud
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Objection is made by the Senator
and corrupt conduct which has extended over a period of years.
rom New Hampshire.
I called attention to this account, which stated on its face that
Mr. BEVERIDGE. H as not the Senator from Oklahoma, in
this great corporation, engaged in this fraudulent course of
iew of the objection, a photograph of the scale which he could
cheating the United States of revenues during a period of
around, so that Senators could see it?
%
years, had kept a daily record of the fraudulent weights by
Mr. OWEN. I do not have a photograph. I submitted the
which they had defrauded the people of the United States.
ut, and the cut which w as submitted, I thought, ought to have
T his account shows that th is w as the seventh different way in
one into the R ecord, because it ought to be given publicity,
which they had defrauded the people of the United States,? which th e Congressional R ecord alone can give. I f the Senthose different methods being:
itor from New Hampshire thinks it ought not to be given such
First, by throwing water on the platform of the scales when publicity, he has a right to object.
th e tare w eights were being calculated.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, the Senator from Okla
Second, to have th e checker put his foot upon the beam of homa w ill not put me in that attitude if he tries to do it. I
the scales,, by which a fraudulent w eight w as given.
think I have quite as great an interest in the public w elfare as
Third, after the Government detected a fraud in the trucks has the Senator from Oklahoma. I am a member of the Com
which were used and caused new trucks to be made and painted mittee on Printing, and I agree w ith the other members of the
red, so that they might be identified, these trucks were imme committee that we should not go into the matter of illustrating
diately afterwards changed in weight, so as to perpetrate a the Congressional R ecord, and for that reason I objected.
fraud in the weights of the sugar imported into this country.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President-----Fourth, by the action of the extra-paid hired weighers of the
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The senior Senator from Oklahoma
sugar trust in moving the balance ball on the scales.
still has the floor:
Fifth, by the hanging of a w eight in the scale house, so as to *rfWr. OWEN. I yield to my colleague.
give a fraudulent weight.
Mr. GORE. I merely suggest to my colleague that possibly
Sixth, by taking the sweepings right under the nose o f the the rule o f the Committee on Printing does not extend so far as
government officials, as the account states, and not weighing to include the printing of such matter in a public document,
them at all.
and publicity might be secured in that way.
Seventh, this last process of the needle made of a corset steel
Mr. GALLINGER. I think that is a w ise suggestion, and I
and injected into the scales through a hole bored in the stand Icertainly would have no objection to that if the Senator desires
ard, by which the scales were made to falsely register the to have it printed as a document.
\
weights, and by which over $2,000,000 w as confessedly stolen. yAlr. OWEN. I ask, therefore, that the account which I sub
And when this account w as presented, I desired of the Senate m itted on Aionday, w ith the illustrations, shall be printed as a
committee that the diagram showing these scales m ight be made poeumord ( S. Doc. No. 60) .
^
a part of the R ecord. I regret to say that that diagram w as |\ M r . SMOOT. I have no objection whatever to that.
not put in the R ecord. I now ask the consent of the Senate ; The VICE-PRESIDENT.. Is there objection to the request
that this diagram go into the R ecord;
of the Senator from Oklahoma? None is heard.
«•— Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I desire to inform the Senate
The order w a s r e d u c e d to w r it in g a n d a g r e e d to, a s f o l l o w s :
that the Committee on Printing, at a meeting held a month or
Ordered, T hat there he printed as a Senate document the article
more ago, decided that all cuts, diagrams, and photographs entitled “ The Chase of the Sugar Smugglers,” etc., appearing in the
should be eliminated from the Congressional R ecord. A reso Congressional R ecord under date of May 24, 1909, together w ith the
lution was presented in the committee, which was accepted ; and ^illustrations.
Mr. OWEN. Air. President, I have but one more word to say.
a number of Representatives, as w ell a s Senators, have asked
since that time to have diagrams placed in the R ecord. They I do not intend to detain the Senate, but I call attention to this
have been refused, and that is only in accordance w ith the reso fraud upon the people of the United States by the American
lution passed by the committee. I have in mind a request of Sugar Refining Company, because it has the most important
the Senator from W ashington [Mr. P il e s ] to print diagrams of bearing upon the words “not above No. 16 Dutch standard in
some shingle mills and other objects affecting his speech on the color,” in paragraph 213, These refiners are the only benefi
lumber question. H e wanted those inserted in the R ecord, but ciaries o f those words. It enables them to take advantage of
it was refused, and refused only upon the ground that the com the consumers o f the United States without benefiting the pro
m ittee thought it was- a very unwise thing to do. And’ I wish ducers of either cane or beet sugar in the United States; and it?
to say to the Senator from Oklahoma now, that so far as I per is a question whether or not this corporation, making, as it does, j
sonally am concerned, I would not have cared one w hit whether out of the people of the United States, in any contingency,^®—1
w
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE.
Mr. BACON. You would uot need any unanimous consent
if you do it by vote.
Mr. LODGE. If I understand the distinction which the
Senator makes, that you cau do anything by unanimous con
sent, I quite agree.
Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me, we have unani
mous consent to do a thing when it is not in order to do it by a
majority vote. That is when we ask consent.
Mr. LODGE. Certainly.
Mr. BACON. Otherwise we do it by vote.
r M r LODGE. Y ou could not exclude these motions if you
anl not have unanimous consent. They are all privileged.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President-----. 1
RESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massa
chusetts yield to the Senator from Minnesota?
Mr. LODGE. Certainly.
(iyti r' KELSON. I was about to say, Mr. President, that I
U|y colleagues here regard me as a kind of heretic on a
f . ,nmn-\
these tariff schedules; but, if it is permissible
, !u a heretic to speak on this occasion, I want to suggest this
ought to Senators: No man in this Chamber, no matter how
ardent a friend he may be of an income tax, can ever guarantee
to us what the Supreme Court may do. The Supreme Court, if
ie question is put up to them again, may decide as they did in
tne last decision; and what would be the effect?
i t we frame this bill on the theory of supplying a part of
,r1ev?nues from the income tax and the Supreme Court
iv h V lecule aRainst tt> 11 would leave the country entirely
' unout sufficient revenue. So, Mr. President, while, as a genlai proposition, I am in favor of an income tax, it seems to
me that the only safe way to proceed in this case to guard
against any contingency that might happen by an adverse de
cision of the Supreme Court is to proceed with the tariff bill
and complete it on the theory that that bill will supply us
with sufficient revenue.
J
I may add as a postscript—and then I will sit down—that
j. was very warmly in favor of an income tax, but it has
i s S e i Z ' f o r ? thG vcto.on the lumber schedule that there
tion to postpone.
mo'
Mr. LODGE. No.
vrllG S
1? ? ’0 OFFICER. The motion is pending
+ Mr. AEWLANDS. But what I have to say will apply to
tbp Sltuatl011i whether the pending question be the motion <
e Senator from Rhode Island or the amendment of the Sei
ator from Texas.
Pnmp'lnvt0 Tstalte,,brj efly
views upon the question of an in
come tax. I shall favor an income tax, and I shall vote for^ T o 1U! T nt for an income ta-x, whether it be a graduated
tax oi a fiat tax, or a tax limited in its operations. I shall vote
ior any income tax that does not violate the essential principles
of what an income tax should be.
As to the necessity for an income tax, I wish to call the atilenm n ° U:C ®e?ate briefly to the fact that there is to day a
. citncy which it is hoped to remedy by economy in adminis
tration. 1 lie country is intent upon constructive work in the
ituie, constructive work which as yet has not been undertaken
m any eomprolumsive way. The country has already underlaken the constructive work of irrigation, and has provided a
fund for that purpose derived from the sales of the public lands.
It has entered upon the constructive work of the Panama Canal
and has provided for that work by the issue of bonds ' The
country is determined to enter upon other constructive’work
the development and the improvement of the waterwavs of the
country; and there is a popular demand, voiced by both parties
that that work shall be entered upon in some scientific and com
prehensive way, and that there shall be a total annual expendi
ture upon it of at least $50,000,000.
In addition to this the country will doubtless enter upon con
structive work on its public buildings in some orderly way un
der a bureau of construction and arts, utilizing the taleuts of
the great architects and artists and the great constructors of
the country, and there will be a demand that at least $30,000^000
annually be spent in this work.
We have there before us at least $80,000,000 of constructive
work annually, which must be provided for.
While I should, if necessary, vote for bonds to carry out a
part of this work—that relating to the waterways—I think it
is incumbent upon us to provide in our general scheme of tax
ation for ample revenue that will cover this great constructive
work which must be conducted by the country, in addition to
2457
the constructive work of our navy, in addition to the construc
tive work of our fortifications, in addition to the constructive
work of our irrigation system, and in addition to the construc
tive work of our Panama Canal system. Eighty million dol
lars, therefore, in addition, must be provided. I believe that
there is but one way of providing for it, and that is by an in
come ta x ; and, regardless of the revenue afforded by this bill,
which will all be used for administrative purposes, there will
still be the ever-present demand for $80,000,000 annually in
order to meet the great constructive work of the future.
As the administrative expenses of the Government, amounting
to over $600,000,000 annually, are to be paid by taxes on con
sumption, derived from internal revenue and customs, it is but
fair that the additional burden, made necessary by needed public
improvements, should be imposed upon wealth; and a tax on
the surplus incomes over and above $5,000 annually, gradually
increasing with the income, is a tax upon that form of wealth
which can best stand the burden. I believe we should test this
question now, in the light of the new views presented in the
recent debates, and not leave the present decision to get the
sanctity which age will give it. I believe that unless the Na
tion now asserts its right to this form of taxation the States
will gradually adopt it; and then, when a time of emergency,
comes, the objection will be made that we ought not to reach
out for fields of taxation already occupied by the States. In
time of emergency, such as war, this tax may be required to
save the life of the Nation; and we should assert now the
right of the Nation to this form of taxation, or it may be forever
lost.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion
of the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. ALDRICH. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll, and Mr. Aldrich
responded to his name.
Mr. BACON. I think, Mr. President, where there has been a
debate on a question that, whenever a motion is to be put to the
Senate, it ought to be stated what the motion is. The Chair
puts the question, and the Secretary, without giving an oppor
tunity for any Senator to even ask that the question be stated,
begins to call the roll. That seems to have become the inva
riable practice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair stated that the
question was on the motion of the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. BACON. Yes, sir; but I. desire tolam w what that mo
tion .is.
ZLez^yC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion, as the Chair
understands, is to postpone the consideration of the amend
ment presented by the Senator from Texasv[Mr. B a il e y ] until
the 10th day of June. The Secretary will call the roll.
The Secretary resumed the calling of the roll.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan (when his name was called). I am
paired with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. McLaurin ].
If he were present, I would vote .“ yea.”
The roll call was concluded.
Mr. DANIEL. I desire to announce that my colleague [Mr.
Martin] is paired with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. B ourne].
If my colleague were present, he would vote “ nay.”
The result was announced—yeas 50, nays 33, as follows:
Aldrich
Beveridge
Bradley
Brandegee
Briggs
Brown
Bulkeley
Burkett
Burnham
Burrows
Burton
Carter
Clark, Wyo.
Bacon
Bailey
Bankhead
Borah
Bristow
Chamberlain
Clapp
Clay
Culberson
Bourne
Clarke, Ark.
YEAS— 50.
Gamble
Guggenheim
Hale
Ileyburn
Johnson, N. Dak.
Jones
Kean
Lodge
McCumber
McEnery
Nelson
Oliver
Page
NAYS— 33.
La Toilette
Cummins
Money
Daniel
Newlnnds
I iolliver
Overman
Fletcher
Owen
Foster
Paynter
Frazier
Rayner
Gore
Shively
Hughes
Simmons
Johnston, Ala.
NOT VOTING— 8.
Davis
Martin
McLaurin
Nixon
Crane
Crawford
Culiom
Curtis
Depew
Dick
Dillingham
Dixon
du Pont
Elkins
Flint
Frye
Gallinger
So Mr. A ldrich ’s motion w as agreed to.
Penrose
Perkins
Piles
Root
Scott
Smoot
Stephenson
Sutherland
Warner
Warren
Wetmore
Smith, Md.
Smith, S. C.
Stone
Taliaferro
Taylor
Tillman
Richardson
Smith, Mich.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE.
2458
EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mr. ALDRICH. I move tliat the Senate proceed to the con
sideration of executive business.
The motion w as agreed to, and the Senate proceeded to the
consideration of executive business. After eight minutes spent
in executive session the doors were reopened, and (a t 4 o’clock
and 55 m inutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow,
Friday, May 28, 1909, at 10 o’clock a. m.
M a x 27
farmer he deducts from the w orth of the cotton the amount of his loss
by bagging and ties. Therefore the spinner does not pay the tariff
profit th at goes to the manufacturers of bagging and ties and the farmer
does.
B ut even if spinner did pay, antagonists’ argument is not
strengthened, because spinner would add excess to m anufactured product
and thus increase the cost to consumer. In either case the trust col
lects the profit and the people pay.
W. B. T hompson,
P residen t New O rleans C otton Exchange.
N ew Orleans, La., M ay 26, 1009.
Hon. A. S. B urleson,
NOMINATIONS.
E xecu tive nom inations received by the Senate May 27, 1909.
P romotions in t h e N avy.
Capt. Herbert W inslow to be a rear-admiral in the navy from
the 27th day of May, 1909, vice Rear-Admiral Edwin C. Pendleton, retired.
Commander W illiam Braunersreuther to be a captain in the
navy from the 27th day of May, 1909, vice Capt. Herbert W ins
low, promoted.
CONFIRMATIONS.
E xecu tive nom inations confirm ed b y th e Senate May 27, 1909.
P romotion in t h e A rmy .
GENERAL OFFICER.
Col. Richard T. Yeatm an to be brigadier-general.
P ostmaster .
Henry W. Driggers, a t Punta Gorda, Fla.
H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T IV E S .
T h u r sd a y , M a y 2 7 ,1 9 0 9 .
The H ouse met a t 12 o’clock noon.
Prayer by th e Chaplain, Rev. H enry N. Couden, D. D.
The Journal o f the proceedings of Monday, May 24, w as read
and approved.
House of R epresen tatives, W ashington, D. C.:
It is a w ell-known fact th at all buyers on both sides of the A tlan tic
allow in the prices they pay fu lly enough, if not more than enough, to
offset the w eight of bagging and ties on a bale. As a general thing
6 per cent is allowed for tare by foreign spinners. W hile all spinners
practically buy on the basis of tare, care Is generally taken th a t allow
ances alw ays equal and frequently exceed actual tare.
H enry G. H ester.
N ew Orleans, La., M ay 26, 1909.
Hon. A. s. B urleson ,
H ouse of R epresen tatives, W ashington, D. C.:
Referring to my previous dispatch for your inform ation, Carolina
m ills have a rule th at they w ill not allow for more than 24 pounds
bagging and ties on a compressed bale and 20 pounds on an uncom
pressed bale. I f bagging and ties exceed th at in w eight, the seller
m ust refund the difference.
C. Lee McMillan.
Hon. A. S. B urleson,
C. Lee McMillan.
A. S. B urleson,
New Orleans, La., M ay 27, 1909.
House of R epresen tatives, W ashington, D. C.:
AH cotton sold for export deducts 6 per cent tare for bagging and
t i e s ; dom estic m ills claim 4 to 5 per cent tare.
Norman E u stis ,
THE TARIFF ON COTTON BAGGING AND TIES.
Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission
to print in the R ecord certain telegram s which have been re
ceived relative to the m atter of the tariff on cotton bagging and
ties and the costs to the producer. I do not desire to make
any speech, but simply to print th is information.
The SPEAKER. The gentlem an from Georgia asks .unani
mous consent to print in the R ecord certain telegram s touch
ing the tariff upon cotton bagging and ties. Is there objection?
[A fter a pause.] The Chair hears none.
Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. Mr, Speaker, in reply to efforts
being made to have cotton bagging and ties placed on the free
list, some have contended that the cotton planter is paid for
sam e a t the price received for the cotton, without deduction for
the bagging and ties, and that th e cotton spinner does not allow
for the tare, as represented by the w eight of the ba-gging and
ties. This contention, I knew, w as not capable of being sus
tained by proof. To show w h at the truth is, the gentleman
from T exas [Mr. B urleson ] and m yself have sought and ob
tained the inform ation contained in the telegram s which we
have received, and which are a s fo llo w s:
Washington, D. C., M ay 25, 1909.
N ew' Orleans, L a., M ay 26, 1909.
W ashington, D. C.:
Cotton exporters calculate 6 per cent tare for bagging and t i e s ; east
ern spinners, 23 to 25 pounds per bale. Carolina m ills’ rule 4 r e a d s:
“ On compressed cotton the tare should n ot exceed 24 pounds, and on
uncompressed cotton, 20 pounds per bale.” Cotton producers pay for
their bagging and ties. Any spinner w ill give more for 500 pounds net
cotton than for a bale w eighing 500 pounds gross, including bagging
and ties.
A ctin g Chairm an C otton F actory A ssociation.
New Orleans, La., M ay 27, 1909.
A. S. B urleson,
W ashington, D. C.:
Cotton sold for export carries 6 per cent deduction for tare ; dom estic
m ills calculate about 5 per cent.
New Orleans Cotton B uyers
A. ,T. West , P resident.
and
E xtorters’ A ssn .,
These telegram s are from gentlemen of the highest character
and standing in the business world, w hose word w ill be accepted
by all who know them as absolutely the truth.
Gen. W . W. Gordon, of Savannah, Ga., is a prominent cotton
merchant, a buyer and exporter of cotton for many years, and
who is in every way qualified by information, knowledge, and
experience to give testim ony on this subject; and there can he
no question th at his statem ents contain the absolute truth.
The other telegram s are from the president and secretary of
the New Orleans Cotton Exchange and other prominent and
reliable merchants, cotton buyers, and exporters of that city.
No one who is fam iliar w ith the facts and who has the proper
regard for the truth w ill assert that the cotton planters are
paid for the bagging and ties at the price paid for the cotton
Hon. W. W. Gordon,
when it is bought by the spinners. Such a statem ent does not
Savannah, Qa.:
convey the truth, and those who oppose placing the bagging and
Opponents free bagging and ties claim producer is paid for same at ties used in baling the South’s cotton on the free list m ust find
price of cotton by spinner w ith ou t deduction for tare. P lease wire
w hat deduction is made for bagging and ties, and in w hat w ay and bow- some other pretext, because the assertion that the former is
considered in fixing price. Does rule apply to both foreign and domestic paid for the bagging and ties when he sells his cotton is abso
spinners ?
lutely w ithout foundation, and these telegram s prove th is w ith
C. L. B artlett.
out question.
Savannah, Ga., M ay 26, 1909.
lion. C. L. B artlett,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:
Offers from Europe nam e a price w hich includes cost of freight,
marine insurance, and 6 per cent tare on a 500-pound bale. Six
per cent would be 40 pounds, w hich covers 16 pounds for 8 yards of
bagging, 8 pounds for 8 tie s, and G pounds for natural drying of cotton
and consequent shrinkage in w e ig h t; nom inally, the farm er is paid for
bagging and ties, but the spinner can’t spin them. ITe sells them for
iunk ; consequently th e price he offers is a figure arrived a t after deduct
ing w hat his loss w ill be on the bagging and ties ; also is true that
farm er in reality is not paid for bagging and ties. American spinners
usually g et 28 pounds tare, and also deduct from price they pay for
cotton th e loss they w ill sustain on the bagging and ties.
W. W. Gordon.
N ew Orleans, La., M ay 26, 1909.
Hon. A. S. B urleson ,
House of R ep resen ta tives, W ashington, D. C. :
Your contention in dispatch concerning tare on cotton is true. When
the farmer buys bagging and ties he pays therefor some 9 cents per
bale more than he would pay if free. When th e spinner buys from thb
JOHN r iv ett .
Mr. K INK AID of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent for the present consideration of the bill H. R. 9609,
and it w ill be necessary to ask for a suspension o f the rules.
The SPEAK ER. The gentleman from Nebraska asks unani
mous consent for the present consideration o f the follow ing
H ouse bill, which the Clerk w ill report.
The Clerk read a s follow s:
A bill (H . R. 9609) to grant to John R ivett privilege to make com
m utation of his homestead entry.
Be i t enacted, etc., T hat John R ivett be. and he is hereby, granted
the privilege, a t his option, to make com m utation of his homestead
entry of the southw est quarter of section 28, tow nship 22 north, range
50 w est, six th principal meridian, in the State of Nebraska, as provided
by law for th e making of com m utation of hom estead e n tr ie s ; and that
private act No. 167, for the relief of John T. R ivett, approved February
24, 1909, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.
The SPEAK ER.
I s there objection?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
1909.
the largest employer of foreign labor. While these manufac
turers claim protection for their industry, they insist upon free
trade in the foreign laborers who are engaged in that industry,
and they employ children who ought to be at school. So the
profits of the manufacturers are increased, and the Republican
party, engaged in paternal legislation, engaged in legislating in
the interest of a certain class and of a certain industry, upon
the hypocritical pretense that it has the cause of the laboring
Rian at heart, looks with contentment upon the employment of
children and upon free trade in foreign labor in this country, so
that these industries are mainly absorbed by foreign employees.
-Air. President, I was just showing how much the total subsuly given to these factories amounts to. I was showing that
ihe billion dollars" worth of cotton production in this country
as contrasted with a similar amount of production in foreign
countries and demanding admission to our markets would be
worth, the former a billion dollars, the latter $700,000,000;
and you put a duty of 4.7 per cent upon it in order to bring its
^alue up to a billion dollars and to exclude it from your mar
kets. You do it effectively, too. For of the seven hundred
millions of foreign products of a similar kind seeking admis
sion to our doors, only thirty-three millions in value are ad
mitted. So, clearly, you collect from the consumers of cotton
products in this country the difference between $700,000.000
and $1,000,000,000, the total value of the domestic product.
Three hundred million dollars are collected in tribute from the
American consumers and paid over to the American manufac
turers, and of the $300,000,000 the paltry sum of about $14,000,000, according to these schedules, gets into the Federal Treasury.
Are you aware that the $300,000,000 more than pays for all
the wages paid by all the manufacturers of cotton goods in this
country? The schedule furnished us by the committee shows
that the total wages paid to all the employees by all the manu
facturers of cotton goods in the country aggregate $217,000,000,
nearly $100,000,000 less than the subsidy which you give the man
ufacturers. And yet in the face of this we find the lowest wage
scale; we find child labor; we find foreign laborers employed to
the exclusion of our own, who, under the protective system
should be maintained upon a proper American wage scale.
This $300,000,000 is taken in by somebody. Only $14,000,000
is taken in by the National Government. Two hundred and
eighty-five million dollars is taken in by the manufacturers and
their total wages amount to only $217,000,000.
These are questions which the dominant party will have to
answer before the people at the next election. ‘ I may add I
have no partisan purpose here in what I have to say or what I
have to do. I wish to relieve the American people from these
excessive duties, because they encourage monopoly and because
they maintain exaggerated prices, because they raise the cost of
living throughout the entire country; and I am willing, so far
as our action here is concerned, that that action shall conform
to the standard established by the Republican party in its
platform and declared by its candidate for the Presidency.
Apply that standard to this very schedule, and it will involve
an average reduction in duties of from nearly 50 to at least 25
or 30 per cent; and it devolves upon the progressives upon the
other side of the Chamber, with the addition of only five votes
from those who have thus far voted against them, to carry
enough weight, with the Democratic side added, to absolutely
secure these reductions and to redeem the pledge of the Re
publican platform. I ask them to study these schedules and
point out the way, and, whilst I have no'authority to suv so I
have no doubt the Democrats will follow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing
to the amendment, which will be stated.
Mr. OWEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will call the roll.
• he Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators
answered to their nam es:
Carter
Clapp
Clark, Wyo.
Clarke, Ark.
Clay
Crane
Crawford
Culberson
Culloin
Cummins
Curtis
1)ick
Dillingham
Dixon
Do! liver
du Pont
Elkins
Fletcher
Flint
Foster
Frazier
Frye
Gallinger
Gore
Owen
Guggenheim
Page
Hale
Penrose
Iley burn
Perkins
Hughes
Piles
Johnson, N. Dak. Root
Johnston, Ala.
Shively
Jones
Simmons
Kean
Smith, Md.
La Follctte
Smith, Mich,
Lodge
„ Smoot
McEnery
Stephenson
Martin
Stone
Money
Sutherland
Nelson
Tillman
Newlnnds
Warner
Nixon
Oliver
Overman
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy-three Senators have
answered to their names. A quorum of the Senate is present.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, last night I respected the deska-^%
of the chairman of the Committee on Finance not to be inter
rupted with any questions, but there were questions I desired
to ask with regard to this schedule, and I call attention now to
paragraph 316, in which the committee amendment proposes
that cotton cloth, valued at over 121 and not over 14 cents per
square yard, shall pay 5 | cents per square yard ; valued at over
14 and not over 16 cents per square yard, 61 cents per square
yard ; valued at over 16 and not over 20 cents per square yard,
8 cents per square yard; valued at over 20 cents per square
yard, 10 cents per square yard, or, approximately, 50 per cent,
but not less than 40 per cent ad valorem.
Mr. President, this proposition on the part of the committee,
I take it, is based upon evidence in the hands and knowledge of
the committee, and I desire therefore to ask the chairman of
the Committee on Finance what is the relative labor cost on
these goods?
Mr. ALDRICH. Paragraph 310 is not yet before the Senate.
When it is, I will be very glad to answer any questions with
reference to it.
~
Mr. OWEN. I wish to say to the Senator from Rhode Island
that his refusal to answer this question is based upon the fact
that he can not answer it without stultifying the committee
itself. I will say to him that the labor cost on these mate
rials does not exceed 25 per cent in this country ; that the differ
ence in the cost of production of these goods in this country and
abroad is a negligible quantity—and he is in honor bound, as the
chairman of the Finance Committee and as the representative
of the Republican party and its platform, to write the schedules
in the light of the difference in the cost of production at home
and abroad. There is imposed upon him that duty.
I have demanded in vain, at the hands of the committee and
of various members of it, some information with regard to this
matter.
Rut there is not lacking information with regard to it. I
have in my hand the report of the Commissioner of Labor, Carroll D. Wright, who gives the percentage of labor in goods of
this kind in this country and in Great Britain and in Belgium,
and the rates approximate 35 per cent. In his table, presented
at the request of the Senate and by direction of Senate resolu
tion, I find No. 178 tw ills; 37 inches wide; picks per inch, SO by
60; warp yarn, No. 12, 1.73 yards per pound; total cost of labor
in transforming materials, 23.75 -per cent. Twills; 39 inches
wide; picks per inch, 96 by 104; warp yarn, No. 34; weft yarn,
No. 45; 3.80 5rards per pound; cost of labor in transforming
materials, 39.00 per cent.
Four-leaf tw ills; 39 inches wide; picks per inch, 76 by 76;
warp yarn, No. 28; weft yarn, No. 40; 4.25 yards per pound;
cost of labor in transforming materials, 33.51 per cent.
Four-leaf tw ills; 43 inches wide; picks per inch, 6S by 68;
warp yarn, average number, 28.05; weft yarn, average number,
37.78; 4.30 yards per pound; cost- of labor in transforming
materials, 35.64 per cent.
Five harvers Albert tw ills; 36 inches wide; picks per inch,
76 by 68; warp yarn, No. 30; weft yarn, No. 40; 5 yards per
pound; cost of labor in transforming materials, 37.10 per cent.
Twills or drills; 29 inches wide; picks per inch, 72 by 48;
warp yarn, No. 12; weft yarn, No. 18; 2.85 yards per pound;
cost of labor in transforming materials, 25.50 per cent.
Twills or drills; 30 inches wide; picks per inch, 6S by 4S;
warp yarn, No. 14; weft yarn, No. 14; 2.85 yards per pound;
cost of labor in transforming materials, 28.25 per cent.
Tables 185, 186, 187, and so on through this list, prepared by
the Commissioner of Labor, show these costs, and when a coniparison is made with the cost of similar cloth in Great Britain,
the labor cost is found, for instance in table No. 198, 35 inches
wide, to be 29.97 per cent. So the difference in the labor cost of
transforming these materials in this country and abroad does
not provide any justification whatever for a tariff rate of 40
per cent or 50 per cent, and the chairman of the Finance Com
mittee does well to refuse to answer this reasonable question,
because he can not answer it. because he can not justify himself
by the reason which underlies this rule. The only justification
of these amendments in raising the rates instead of lowering
the Dingley rates is that all competition shall be cut off from
abroad and a complete monopoly given to those engaged in this
manufacture here.
This very schedule shows in paragraph 316, to which I called
attention, that cloth exceeding 34 and not exceeding 5 square
yards to the pound brought to the United States Government
the munificent revenue of $237 for 90,000,000 people - practical! v
exclusion; practically cutting off all competition, either actual
I
2864
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
or potential, so as to establish here beyond the peradventure of
a doubt a complete monopoly of these goods. And having
pointed out to the Senate and to the people of the United
States that the difference in the cost of production at home and
abroad is not guiding the committee or this body in drawing
these proposed amendments and that the pledges of the Repub
lican national platform is being w illfu lly betrayed, I content
myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to
the amendment of the committee, on which amendment the yeas
and nays have been ordered.
Mr. IIEYBURN. Mr. President, before voting on this amend
ment I want to have the attention of the Senate for a minute
or two. I am not going to discuss the schedule, but I wish the
R ecord to show why I am going to vote for the committee
amendment.
I am not going to vote for this committee amendment upon
some of the grounds that have been stated by Senators on this
side. I do not realize the necessity for entering into this close
analysis of the cost of the articles under this schedule abroad
and at home. I would alw ays make a market for the cotton
products of the South in this country in preference to making
a market for their products abroad. We w ill take care of all
the products of cotton that the South have to produce at just
as good prices on this side of the water; and after the admis
sion, as I understood it, by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. D olliver ] and by other Senators on this side that it will not raise
the cost of the manufactured products to the consumer, it makes
no difference to me, and I do not care how much money the middle
man makes, because he is an American and is engaged in the
business of manufacturing this cotton through the various inter
mediate steps of turning it over for ultimate use.
That is the reason why I shall vote for this schedule, not be
cause of any comparison between what European nations might
be forced to do in order to get into our market, but because of
what people w ill do of their own w ill for the sake of building
up the enterprise and furnishing the commodity here, so that
we w ill depend upon competition among Americans rather than
competition between Americans and foreigners. That is the
doctrine of protection I adhere to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary w ill call the
roll on agreeing to the amendment of the committee.
The Secretary proceeded to c a ll the roll, and Mr. A ldrich
answered in the affirmative.
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I insist upon it that Senators
have a right to address the Chair without being cut off by pre
cipitate action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The present occupant of the
chair w ill suggest that no Senator w as on his feet.
Mr. BACON. We are not a lot of acrobats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not the province of the
Chair to invite Senators to speak.
Mr. BACON. It is not the province of the Chair to invite
Senators to speak, but it is the province of the Chair, I respect
fully submit, to give ear to Senators if they desire to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is
recognized and w ill proceed.
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I w ant to raise a point of order,
or, rather, I w ill make an inquiry. The Chair stated that the
yeas and nays had been ordered. I would inquire when?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two or three hours ago.
Mr. BACON. This morning?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This morning.
Mr. BACON. I do not think that is a compliance w ith the
rule. I may be in error about it, but my opinion is that the
contemplation o f law is that those who are present to vote at
the time the roll is called are the ones to require the vote to be
entered upon the record. The language of the Constitution is
as follow s:
The yeas and nays of the Members of either House on any question
shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the
Journal.
Mr. President, l a m not going to insist upon that, because at
the time I made the inquiry I thought it w as last night that the
yeas and nays had been ordered, and I w as going to make the
point that that was not a legitim ate call for the yeas and nays
on a vote to be taken to-day. B ut as the yeas and nays were
ordered this morning, I w ill not now present the point.
Mr. HALE. Let me say to the Senator that when the yeas
and nays were ordered, it was expected that a vote would be
taken at once.
Mr. BACON. Exactly. And believing that those present now
are practically those who were present at that time, I do not
wish to raise the poin t; but I would raise it if there had' been
a recess, or if the call had been ordered last night. I know
J u n e 5,
that there w as yesterday, if not an order for the yeas and nays,
at least a partial order. I trust the Chair w ill understand the
reason why I was somewhat earnest about the matter.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President, I wish to suggest to the
chairman of the committee, in view of what has occurred, the
advisability of his not insisting that the roll call under these
circumstances shall proceed. I appeal to Senators on the
grounds of propriety. The Senator from Iowa, who has ad
dressed the Senate twice, notified the Senate twice that he in
tended to offer an amendment to the committee’s amendment.
H e remained here for that purpose, but he has just gone down
to get something to eat. Now, all at once, at a time when I am
sure several Senators now absent who have been here did
not expect it, and before any Senator had arisen to his feet,
the Chair very properly ordered the roll to be called. The clerk
quickly began to call it, and the Senator from Rhode Island
answered to his name. Under the rules the roll call must go
on and not be interrupted, but under such a situation, brought
about no doubt by the observance of parliamentary usage and
the praiseworthy vigilance which the Senator from Rhode
Island alw ays exercises, the Senator from Iowa, who could
not have anticipated that this situation would arise, went to get
something to eat without offering his amendment; and any
Senator who might want further to discuss the bill or to ask
the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the committee,
any questions, as no Senator had arisen to his feet and gotten
the recognition of the Chair before the Senator from Rhode
Island answered to his name, is absolutely estopped. It is a
form, in effect, of cloture under such circumstances which works
to the denial of substantial rights of Senators who had served
notice that they intended to be here to offer amendments.
Now, th is can not be stopped by anything else except an ap
peal to the Senators in charge of the bill upon setting forth the
situation and an appeal to the proprieties. I am sure it is not
the intention of the Senator from Rhode Island, by the calling
of the roll, to shut off anybody, and especially a Senator who
had been speaking for a long time, and who then left the
Chamber to get something to eat. I am sure he does not intend
to proceed in this manner, the Senator not having answered
any question, which he invited us last night to ask and said he
would answer this morning. I suggest, under the circumstances
of the case, while the right does not exist from a parliamentary
point of view, the propriety and advisability of not insisting
that the roll call shall proceed on this amendment.
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa gave
notice of his purpose to offer an amendment to paragraph 312,
which has been agreed to by the Senate. The pending amend
ment is an amendment of the committee to insert certain words
in paragraph 313. It does not involve the question of ad valorems at all. I f this question is disposed of, that question comes
up immediately upon the next amendment of the committee,
which is involved in this same paragraph. It is simply a matter
of waiting for a few minutes before all this can transpire.
There are no rights of anybody involved in it at all. The
amendment of the Senator from Iowa is to paragraph 312. It
is not involved in the question now before the Senate.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. W ill the Senator allow me to ask him a
question?
Mr. ALDRICH. Certainly.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. W hile that might be true, I would sug
gest that some Senators who are earnest about the matter may
feel that their rights are involved; and would it not be a
better course to withdraw the roll call and let Senators do
what they think is proper about it? Would not that be the
fairer and the more generous course?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair suggests to Senators
that the discussion is proceeding by unanimous consent.
Mr. ALDRICH. A s this vote is only one of a number of votes
wdiich m ust be taken upon this subject, and does not involve
at all the question of ad valorems which is involved in the next
amendment of the committee, I can see no reason for not pro
ceeding now’ with the roll call.
Mr. DOLLIVER entered the Chamber.
Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from Iowra then w ill be in a
position where he can offer his amendment to the amendment
of the committee and raise the whole question which he pro
poses to raise by his amendment. I do not think that I am
taking any advantage of anybody by asking that the roll call
shall proceed.
Mr. DOLLIVER. I offered an amendment or indicated that I
would propose an amendment to paragraph 312. It is logical
that we should dispose of paragraph 312 first. Then wre could
proceed to paragraph 313, voting for or against the committee’s
amendment, w ith the matters that are involved by the amend
ment I have to paragraph 312 out of the way. As it would re-
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
lieve I voice the feeling of a large majority, if not of all,
Senators on this side—that in casting that vote we are not
would not vote; but whenever it is impossible to make a reduc
tion as low as I would desire to make it, reducing the duty to
a revenue basis, and I am compelled to choose, as we have been
frequently compelled to choose during the consideration of this
hill, between high protection and moderate protection, I take
moderate protection as the least of the two evils.
Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President, I do not desire to say anytning hitter or to hurt anybody’s feelings, but I am very, very
tired of the sham battle, or what appears to me to be one, on
i vr ° a 1 s*de- ^ast night the Senator from Rhode Island
In Ali>ki.c h ] proved to his entire satisfaction, and, apparently,
10
. satisfaction of the Macedonian phalanx which he has
and bolds together, that there is no increase of duty
ui toe Senate amendments. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.
~*A fOLLETTK] yesterday and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Dolliykrj to-day have proved, almost from the same sources of
evidence—the same witnesses, and so forth, Mr. Parkhill being
a star witness on both sides—that there is a material increase;
and when the debate is about to close, those of us on this side
who want to get what we can out of this so-called “ tariff revision in the way of relief from the burdens imposed by the
fungley schedules are told by the Senator from Iowa that he
is not endeavoring, and has never had any view or purpose to
ao more than to keep the Dingley Act just like it is; to prevent
u:ly increase and to make certain of one thing—that if there
were any forgotten provisions or paragraphs in the Dingley
Act which permit of the frauds of which the Senator from
ivhode Island told us last night, he will put out a dragnet of 25
Per cent ad valorem to catch them all.
So far as I am concerned, I earnestly want the Senator from
Rhode Island to get together his big band, his Macedonian phah l nVVS 1 UlVe
f ° i dered together by lead, stuck together
by beet sugar, riveted together by steel, and hooped together
,v 11l(.)H’
ky all the other villainies that are in this bill—the
combination of greed in the West and in the East and in t >
Middle West, holding this man and that man and the other
man in line to vote as he is ordered—because we h ive *,n l
practically that the Senator from Rhode Island is the Senate
on this question. [Laughter.] I want him to quit. Why does
he not press things to a vote, ring down the curtain on t E
you have seduced over to your doctrine to be overwhelmed by a
solid Republican vote.
,
Therefore I say this sham battle ought to cease. The dis
cussion has gone far enough to demonstrate that there are
plenty of iniquities in this hill, plenty of iniquities in the
doctrine of protection as you illustrate it. If the people of
America are satisfied with it, they will continue to vote you
into the House and into the Senate. If they are not satisfied
with it, they will vote some of you out and send others here
to take care of their interests.
You have been charged to-day by one of your leaders—a lead
ing m an; he may not be a leader in the party, but he is a leader
in his own State—with being hypocrites. You are not all
hypocrites. But you are the boldest band of buccaneers that I
have ever seen got together. [Laughter.]
Now, if I have said anything this evening that in the slightest
wounds anybody, I want to say in advance I did not intend it,
hut after six days of this kind of humbug, sham, pretense of
an effort to relieve the consumers, I have blowed off steam, and
now I want to add to the literature of this debate by having
printed from a Boston paper a comment on this cotton schedule,
and on a speech of their own Senator [Mr. L odge.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from South
Carolina ask that it be printed without being read?
Mr. TILLMAN. Oh, no; I want it read. It is too sweet
and nice to go in without reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Secre
tary will read, as requested.
The Secretary read as follows:
DEFENDING DECEPTION----SENATOR LODGE ABANDONS ALL PRETE N SE OF M AK
ING A FAIR REVISION OF T H E TARIFF.
[From the Boston Traveler, Wednesday, June 2, 1909.]
Senator Lodge made what is described as the best speech of the ses
sion yesterday on the cotton schedules. He began by saying, in effect,
that while the Nation may have been fooled into the belief that the Re
publican party contemplated an honest revision of the tariff, in the only
wav it would do the consumer any good downward neither he nor
any of the other leaders of the Chicago convention had made that direct
promise, which convicts Mr. Lodge of a carefully planned attempt to
deceive.
.
Ho made an impassioned plea for the mill operatives of New England,
who “ must not be deprived of their right to work and wages,” and for
the manufacturers who must be protected against cheap labor abroad.”
The mill operatives, for whom the Nahant Senator s eloquence w’as un
loosed, are practically all Greeks, Syrians, Poles, Armenians, and Ital
ians, who have driven out every other kind 01 labor, because, under
present wages in the cotton mills, to bring up a family under American
conditions is absolutely impossible. ,
want to know. hr° Ugh’
^ US g° lloRle? T1,at is what I
Senator L odge denied that the cotton mills paid unduly large divi
and attempted to explain away some specific cases where the
We have had enough exposure of the how not to do it nro dends,
dividend for one year was over 60 per cent. Apropos of this, there
gramme of reform. It amounts to nothing so far as the Demo came to our table yesterday a pamphlet from a reputable Boston broker
crats are concerned, unless it be to some of us on this side who age house which flatly contradicts Mr. L odge, and shows that practically
the cotton mills have been paying high dividends, many of them iii
are trying to pick up a crumb here and there for some little aall few
years returning to shareholders an amount equal to the entire
local interest.
capital Invested.
Mr. L odge' s defense of the cotton manufacturers, whose mills are
The Senator from Rhode Island last night was very per
with aliens on starvation wages, is paralleled in history only by
suasive and eloquent in his plea to the South to take care filled
the arguments made in Parliament at the time England was attempting
ol its own cotton, for it would undoubtedly be a great industry to abolish the slave trade, that if the bringing of black people from
there. It is already a great industry there, and it will he a Africa to America and elsewhere was prohibited shipowners would not
find any use for their vessels, and that these slave ships furnished the
greater. Speaking for myself, for my own State, for instance only
market for decayed fish and other putrid food, on which there
where the industry of manufacturing cotton is advancing bv would be a dead loss if the slave trade was outlawed.
To prove that revision was “ downward ” in some cases. Senator
leaps and hounds, we have, say, 80,000 or maybe a few more
odge proudly called attention to the fact that on Monday th e Senate
people—men, women, and children—who are engaged in the Lmade
an important reduction on the duties on salt, which is fitting and
cotton-miII industry. We have GW,000 white people and 800,000 proper. Sait is used to make things more palatable and not infre
.
,
negroes who can not get any benefit from that except by the quently to disguise the taste of rotting food.
More than any utterance of this session, Senator L odge ’s speech puts
flnn, l l b«llijins up A an industry in our midst which draws President Taft in an awkward position, because the candidate evidently
tiorn the fields some of the population that otherwise would be was not trusted sufficiently by the party leaders to be informed ot the
deception attempted by the Chicago convention, and openly, on several
compelled to continue to grow cotton as a raw product.
occasions before that convention and subsequently during the campaign,
. t have as much concern in the welfare and in protecting the declared himself in favor of a revision “ downward.” Inasmuch as Mr.
interests and rights of the 600,000 as I have in the 80,000 who Taft has the final say on what the tariff shall be, the people will know
eventually whether he reallv meant what he said, or, like lodge ana the
may be spinning cotton, but no more. The Senator from Rhode rest,
was only playing politics to get votes.
island docs not care a snap for them; for, when we plead with
liiin to give us free bagging and ties, in order to relieve us in
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, I reassure the Senate at once
ever so small a degree from a burden imposed by this trust or by disclaiming any purpose to detain it for any length of time.
that—the steel trust on ties, the bagging trust on bagging, and
I feel under lasting obligations to the Senator from Iowa
so forth—he refuses. Yet he appeals to the South to help him [Mr. D ollivicr] for the manner in which he brought this dis
to take care of our own country simply because New Englaud cussion to a close this afternoon. I have been perplexed and
is more deeply interested.
mystified by the intricacies of the cotton schedule. I have not
I believe in equal rights for ail and special privileges for pretended at any time to be a master of its mysteries, nor do
none. That is one of the fundamental principles of Democracy, I now pretend so to understand it as to be able to instruct any
which I sucked with my mother’s milk, and I will be unfit to be one. I did beiieve, from the length of the discussion and the
called a Democrat when I depart from that doctrine.
vehemence with which it was prosecuted, that a great over
I believe in equality of opportunity and equality of burden, whelming issue was somewhere involved in the mysteries con
and we are not getting it and there is no pretense here of trying cerning which this discussion proceeded.
to give it to us. We are allowed the poor privilege of voting
r rum iuc o c u a io r xroin — ~~ — o -----^
i cur
not to have duties go up, hut not the privilege of having them reetiy understood him, this definite conclusion: That all of tip
go down, unless we bring in an amendment of our own, with week’s discussion has been centered about a line of importation’
our 27, or 28, or 29, or 30, according to how many of our men not exceeding $350,000 per year.
2870
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Mr. DOLLIVER. If the Senator w ill permit me, if he gath
ered any such impression from this discussion, it was owing
to his occasional absence from the Chamber.
Mr. CARTER. The Senator stated and repeated the state
ment that the Senator from Rhode Island w as manifestly in
error in assuming, as his submission of an article from a news
paper indicated he did assume, that $500,000 of claims would be
asserted against the Government in consequence of a recent
refusal of the Supreme Court to grant a writ of review for a
certain case. The Senator, I understood, argued that the total
amount involved did not exceed $55,000, and quoted Treasury
statistics in support of his statement.
But, Mr. President, the Senator made the further statement
that certain articles or fabrics partially made of linen and par
tially of cotton were by the Dingley Act placed in the schedule
relating to flax and linen—that is correct—and at 09 per cent
ad valorem.
Mr. DOLLIVER. I do not desire to interrupt the Senator,
but he must remember that the Senator from Rhode Island and
I agree perfectly that the principle involved in this first para
graph, which does include only a small portion of the im
ported cotton cloths brought into the country, is exactly the
same as the principle involved in all the succeeding paragraphs
containing the assessments upon countable cotton. Therefore I
see no reason why the Senator should undertake to minimize
the importance of this discussion, in view of the fact that it
covers the whole field involved in the amendments.
Mr. CARTER. It is true, no doubt, as the Senator from
Iowa stated, that the paragraph upon which this 60 per cent
rate was based was embraced in what is known as the “ flax
schedule.” As the art progressed the fabrics originally con
structed chiefly of linen were' in due time made more and more
of cotton. The Treasury officials, intending, as they understood
their duty to be, to apply the duty to the article or fabric,
applied the 60 per cent duty, which w as made applicable to this
particular fabric, whether made of linen or of cotton. In that
ineffectual effort the Treasury ceased to collect certain revenue
which was being collected under that construction or the applica
tion of that section; and the articles were thenceforth admitted
at the lower rate of duty—for a time at 45, and finally down
to 25 per cent ad valorem.
It has not been charged or asserted or claimed in any man
ner here that the admission of th is class of goods at the
lower rate of duty has cheapened a single one of these goods in
the markets of the United States. I do not understand that
there is any pretense that the consuming public of this country
were given the benefit of the reduction of duty. Mr. Presi
dent, it can not therefore be reasonably pretended or claimed
that if we raise this duty to what w as originally intended any
increase of price w ill follow that rate; and then the whole
matter resolves itself into this, to wit, that, according to the
Senator from Iowa, the Treasury of the United States will
benefit at the rate of $55,000 a year at least, if we raise the duty
to where it was and where the committee thinks it ought to
be. According to the Senator from Rhode Island, the increase
in Government revenues w ill be very much larger than $55,000
a year.
..
Mr. DOLLIVER. If I understand the situation correctly, the
committee do not even make the pretense that they are going
to restore the 60 per cent in the cases where the courts or the
appraisers have denied the application of that rate. They have
omitted those articles altogether.
Mr. CARTER. No law can be here passed that w ill change
the application of existing law up to the date this bill is passed.
The law now on the statute books w ill be the law, despite any
effort of Congress, until this law of Congress is made a substi
tute for it. So, of course, no action of Congress can impair
the existing rights of parties as fixed by the law, now construed
by the courts to be according to the 25 per cent rate.
These rights are fixed and can not be disturbed. That, of
course, is elementary. But, from the day the bill passes, the
higher rates will be collected; the price of the article to the
consumer w ill remain the same; and the extra money will go
into the Treasury of the United States instead of into the
pockets of the importer. That seems to be the end and the
Whole substance of this controversy.
m,
f Mr. OWEN. I should like to ask the Senator from Montana
( whether he thinks this schedule should be written in the light
| of the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad?
t It is a novel question which I should like him, as a great expert,
\ t o answer.
,
Mr. CARTER. The Senator m anifestly failed to hear my dis
claimer of any expert knowledge.
_ Mr. OWEN. I now concede it.
Mr. CARTER. I believe the Senator is prepared to concede
it and was before he asked the question. I do not know that
J u n e 5,
at this hour, just upon the eve of a vote, it would be either
instructive or agreeable to the Senator from Oklahoma or to
the Senator from Montana, or to the Senate at large, to go
into a general discussion of platform pledges and the manner
of their execution.
„
,
.
.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana rMr.
C arter] complains of the conflicting figures submitted by va
rious Senators with reference to the amount of duty involved
in ihe cotton schedule. That Senator submitted, a few days
a<ro a "olden rule by which we could extract the truth from
conflicting and contradictory statements of this kind.
It is true that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. A ldrich]
Mated last night that the duties involved amounted to $500,000,
and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. D olliver] stated to-day that
‘it involved only about $55,000. The Senator from Idaho [Mr.
B orah 1 suggested this morning that it involved $100,000 of
duties The Senator from Utah [Mr. S moot] made a state
ment which I did not fully understand; but so & r as I could
gather, his contention was that it embraced about $000,000 of
* UThere ought to be no difficulty in resolving these conflicting
official statements into the absolute and infallible truth by
merely applying the golden rule furnished to us a few days ago
by the senior Senator from Montana. He suggested to us a
formula as to how we could cast these conflicting statements
into the crucible and take out the pure truth. I suggest to that
Senator that if he w ill take the statement made by the Senator
from Rhode Island last night, the statement made by the Sena
tor from Iowa this morning, the statement made by the Senator
from Idaho this afternoon, all of which were official and from
the same undoubted authority, and join to these the inspired
guess of the Senator from Utah, add the four together and then
divide the sum by four, he w ill have the exact and the infallible
tX Mr CUMMINS. Mr. President, if I believed that the amend
ment'upon which we are about to vote involved only a remedy
for the obvious defects in the Dingley law, I would not find it
necessary to say a single word or to prolong by a single moment
this discussion. The Senator from Montana, evidently misap
prehending the amendment upon which we are about to vote,
suggests that it is hardly worth while to take up our time over
so small a matter as $55,000 a year. I do not so understand this
amendment, and I intend in the very few moments that I will
ask your indulgence to treat it in the same admirable spirit
that was manifested last night by the Senator from Rhode
Island [Mr. Aldrich].
I listened to his address with as much intentness as I ever
bestowed upon any address, and I believe that I understood what
he said. In so far as I am concerned personally, I believe the
Dingley law, whether as originally interpreted or as recently
interpreted, ought to be reduced.
I believe that upon the chief articles—not upon some of these
fancy articles which have consumed so much time here, but in
the main—th e.d u ties are too high, and I should like to see
them reduced; and if we could find on this side of the Chamber
those five patriots suggested by the Senator from Nevada [Mr.
N ew l a n d s ], I would like very much to find them. But we have
looked in vain for them, and w e shall be content—at least, I
shall be content—if we can hold the Dingley law as it is. It
does not satisfy me, but we are in such grave peril of losing
it that I am soiicitous about holding on to what w e have rather
than attempting to secure that which we know is impossible.
Now, I address m yself largely to the Senator from Rhode
Island or any other member of the committee, and I desire to
say to the Senate and to the members of the committee that
I want to be interrupted, and I w ill yield for a question or an
answer at any time any Senator thinks he can enlighten me or
the Senate with respect to these questions. If I understood the
discussion last night, the Senator from Rhode Island announced
four propositions. I do not attempt, of course, to put them in
his exact words, but I paraphrase them.
He first announced that it was necessary to change the Dinglev paragraph 304, in order that there might be embraced
within it an adequate duty upon higher-priced cloths with a
count of threads of 50 or under per square inch. The Senator
assents to the proposition, and I assent to the necessity for a
change in paragraph 304. It has been only a question as to
Iwhat duty should be placed upon those high-priced cloths that
were obviously omitted from the protection of the statute in
old paragraph 304, the present paragraph 312. I pass, there
fore, from that, because there is no controversy there. We must
not confuse this issue.
H is second proposition was that it w as necessary to count
the threads of a superimposed figure, and thus put certain cloth
into the proper paragraph, in order that it might be suitably
assessed.
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
duce that inclusive duty contained in the last proviso of the
Paragraph:
2903
the Senator if his printed remarks are no more satisfactory
than his explanation of paragraph 31G, which took place after
non<v °f the articles or fabrics provided for in this paragraph the passage of that paragraph, and in such an indiscernible and
an pay a less rate of duty than 47i per cent ad valorem.
invisible manner that it never reached my ears nor appeared in
-,cn-ila)t: seems
have been calculated to a very great nicety in the R ecord, that I shall again make the inquiry of the Senator
ob<, but I can not find any reason for maintaining a higher ad from Rhode Island as to the difference in the cost of production.
<1 orem duty on those goods in the present state of the rnaiiuIf it would not greatly inconvenience the Senator at this time,
actur®, which is now very highly advanced, than is provided I should like to know the percentage of labor cost in these arti
cles in the United States.
highest classes of manufactured cotton cloths.
Mr. ALDRICH. I stated in a general way that the cost of
n1lf , ALDRICH. It is much more expensive to make these
rott 6S’
velvcteens, and so forth, than the ordinary labor in the United States was about twice what it is in com
S' They have always had a higher rate in all the peting countries, that is, about 50 per cent difference. The dif
is 47 i a.-per cent.
j.!ct
1
hjj m
o pvi.
.c.11c higher mnu
^
v
n—
the
o ,,
i ’ 7’ an<i tPe ra^e
iso U
only
2J
per vcent
than luut
that uu
on ference jin this paragraph
duce?i 1'H,ry commop cloth. I think the rates can not be re-.-^ M r. OWEN. Mr. President, in determining any mathematical
tr
wlthout affecting seriously the manufacture in this conn-/ equation where x is the unknown quantity, to double the value
try.
\ ooff x is not very elucidating.
■Yr..
Y
Mr. LODGE rose.
^ - v - ' - ^ Pk^IVER. But the highest rate provided for the
sum vo ( i . c?tt°n cloth, cloths exceeding 300 threads to the /v- Mr. OWEN. I should like to have the Senator from Massa
inform me with regard to the difference of the labor
lorem n,C-i 1S bruited by a minimum of 40 per cent ad va- / cchusetts
l
tlioso Yi
e twelve years ago the manufacture of many of cost of these articles.
v
-—Mr.
LODGE.
The statement read by the Senator from
inrlnafv , mi Pushes, and so forth, was a comparatively new
tho
Price of these cloths has not been in excess of Rhode Island the other night gave the figures of the British
rov i / o 6 0f hl«hly wrought cotton cloths. For instance, cordu- Board of Trade collected in the various countries of Europe and
eYnorfoi VCry common article of clothing, and, I think, not so in the United States. I suppose the Senator from Rhode Island
tuv,?i«l!e as tIle biSir grades of cotton cloths. The manufac- thought that the British Board of Trade would be considered a
m„nh r,i\Gry r / i 1 advanced in this country, and I would be very disinterested witness. Those figures represent the difference of in" thK c w l lf l He twelve years of Progress in the art of weav- cost very accurately. I can not repeat them from memory, but
sliaht l n i A - Un'd0er ample Protection could be followed by a I can get the report of the board of trade and submit it here.
I know what an investigation showed made by Carroll D.
pronose +n ^ °n of tlle DinSley schedules, although I do not
Wright, who was a statistician, I think, whose reputation is un
S r a nn
an amendment to that effect.
questioned.
It was made when he was chief of the bureau of
1 did iwt
+ \ v WiU Sfly to the Senator f rom Iowa if
teci i n n T , ; ! , } h'd \ the. rates suggested are necessary for pro- labor statistics in my State. The inquiry extended over a
becauso T
2 ot resist his suggestion. I am perfectly sure, number of years, and the result was that in 90 industries of
of iho r>^am dl?lte as familiar with this industry as any article Massachusetts and England the wages per hour were 77 per
art
o^ T SCbedUl°’ tliat these rates are not high. They are cent higher in Massachusetts than in Great Britain. He gave
I io u lV . A r ^
S° “ e o£ these velvets are high priced and all the details involved, making up five volumes.
- Mr. OWEN. After the side remarks of the Senator from
T11e I*IiE<4rmeVT'Iy t0 f ee any reductioa of the rates.
! Massachusetts I would now like an answer to my question, y
2
4-have access to those statistics.
. The amendment was agreed to.
mance.
Mr. LODGE. I have given the Senator an answer. I can
lot make him understand it, o f course.
...—
«
seems^to 2 m 'th a f thte 2 s ^ m , n o r t P*r a p h . te diBPosed
>Mr. OWEN. The Senator from Oklahoma is entirely capable
request the chairman of the Fommitf1^ rtUQrn-tUlle in 'vl)icl1 to >f comprehending anything that will emanate in the English
“ the difference in t L cost o ? the
FuT Ge to explain
in this country and abroad” I lmvJ11'ctmn ° f these articles language from the Senator from Massachusetts. But when the
explanation on naraemnh "ic
,b‘V e waited in vain for an Senator from Massachusetts talks about the difference in the
amounts 1JU
paid
labor W
of Great ------Britain
as shown by the
Of the SCnrnmi+t/>
u y f atuuuuiB
IU
. to
iu the
iuu
Jttuui
-- —
*■*»=
tthe
i ll chairman
chairmanof'’S
& S i S ' S S Was
™ —
ki5 » * yiunnsea
Ptomised by
-.. ..i*
i a. .
t. *„i.
t
y
it
t nnounooi /in
onrl fnAin
be regarded as intrnsi™ ttee 011 * mance, I hope it will n o t! reports
referred
to which
are ^in my
possession, and
from which
of the Republican rmvh, i 2 sk')U, d suggest that the platform! 1 have made a compilation, he does not answer the question
---- , JFnJ
lire. leader3
leauers.hi
m the
the Senate
Senste to I as to the percentage of labor cost in the materials m entioned^,
rvvHc
vvrile t hi s mi 2222
ferencet mStFaragr+a p i among others in the light of “ the d if in this paragraph.
fercnce in the cost of production in this country and abroad ” f — Mlrt"LODGE. I beg the Senator’s pardon; I did not under
co™ S r t . “ a g “ m a l " * « * - not e x S d t a fa b “ c o s t1 stand that that was his question. I thought he was asking
what the difference in labor cost is.
, Mr. OWEN. The question was that which I have la st^ j
elated.
t
f e S S M
2 a £ . “ S S £ !
Mr. LODGE. Now I understand that what the Senator
wants is the amount of labor cost of the material.
—Mr. OWEN. The percentage of labor cost.
PP S ta to r fiom Rhode Island what is the difference bv nmMr. LODGE. The percentage of the labor cost, as distin
guished from the material used, I can not, in this particular
ot u,eso artides
paragraph, give without an opportunity of inquiry. I can get it
^ • l0^
EICH- D°eS tb° Senator wteh an answer to t t s by inquiry. I can not answer it offhand.
Mr. OWEN. Then I move that this paragraph be passed j
expert^n tlie ouestion of tbo^Ttmw11 inquir;v. to the most leamoiV, /bver until that information be furnished,
in^ thiV wuntrv
t
Le ? St of >,roduction)
Mr. GALLINGER. I object, Mr. President,
the Senate 2
f n i ^ n 2 ,2
be f° Und ° n the floor
^ Mr- OWEN. I have sought in vain to obtain from any memMr A M
ans\ver
/ X e r of the Finance Committee the percentage of labor cost in
currine fTml r
^ ’ I .resident>. 1 appreciate fully the re4 any of these items. Not in a single instance has an answer
knowledge <,p !
a ,mo?2 S°'Fu 2 u Say s P:ismodic thirst fori been made, and I venture to say that no answer will be made
S
bv otbrn £ n , ? nat0u £ ° m 0k la!loma- tt is shared more o r /w h ile this debate is pending.
hr;t; yr
^ a a to r s sittingtupon the othcr side of the ChamMr. ALDRICH. I said the other night that in a fabric cost
2 / ' ? have no doubt that if we had a combination in this ing $1 a pound—and
all--------------------these articles—
I U ----- U.LIU. the
U 1 C same rule
U i c applies to -----'-‘ ' - w o ----on per
.w,- cent
n n -r.4 - was
..... o the
4 cost of
>H> ma+eria
51T1<1 80
SO per
respect In which this thirst could be pooled it would be ex not over 20
of +
the
material1 and
tremely valuable and it would answer in the new State of cent was the cost of labor. Of course I would be glad to ac
Oklahoma.
commodate the Senator from Oklahoma, but if we wait until
But the Senator from Oklahoma could not have listened to my every Senator is satisfied about something which he may have
6peech the other night, to be serious about this matter, because in his mind with reference to these matters it will take a long
I explained the difference between the cost of production here time, especially if w e'get to a point where he is sure that he
and in competing countries abroad upon these articles in the understands it.
cotton schedule. That speech I have hot had a chance to read
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senator
yet, but it will be published in to-morrow morning's R ecord, / from Rhode Island to the report of Mr. Carroll D. Wrieht unh
and I will suggest that, (he Senator should devote his spare timo lished in Senate Document No. 20, Fifty-fifth Con cress
i
to a perusal of it.
* session, a gentleman whose ability in the matter / i f
d
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I shall defer this matter with\ such inquiries has been complimented bv the Seontnr V 'r'S
great pleasure until to-morrow morning, but I wish to advise’i Massachusetts.
etna tor from
*»*•,i
s s u ,k
f ir :
2904
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
190. Cloth manufactured in the United States. Cotton cloth,
38$ inches w id e ; picks, per inch, 64 by 64; warp yarn, No. 30;
w eft yarn, No. 36, 5.15 yards per pound. The cost of labor in
transforming these m aterials is not 80 per cent, but 33 per cent,
and the cost of the material not 20 per cent, but 66 per cent.
In case No. 181, four-leaf tw ills, 43 inches wide; picks, per
inch, 68 by 68; warp yarn, average number 2805; w eft yarn,
average number 377S; 4.30 yards per pound. The labor cost is
35 per cent, and 64 per cent of the whole value is the cost of
the material. So it goes with numerous other particular cases
enumerated by him. I think, therefore, it is very much in point
to know what is the percentage of labor cost in these articles,
and also what is the percentage of labor cost of these or similar
articles in Great Britain.
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I do not know whether the
Senator is interested on account of the Chicago platform in
these propositions or for some other reason. I w ill give the
Senator from Oklahoma one answer which applies to practically
every schedule and every paragraph in the bill. The total
cost of production in the United States is a labor cost; prac
tically entirely so.
Mr. OWEN. Upon what evidence is that based?
Mr. ALDRICH. C om m on sense.
— -Mr. OWEN. That is not sufficiently accurate as an answer
to my question, statistically.
Mr. ALDRICH. That may not be good authority to the
Senator from Oklahoma.
''
Mr. OM EN. It depends by whom the announcement is
made.
Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator, and every Senator, must know
that the cost of production of every article produced in the
United States is in its last analysis a cost of the labor that
goes into it. The only exception to that must be, of course,
ore in the earth undisturbed and lumber in the primeval forest
undisturbed. Every other element of cost is a cost of labor
in one form or another. So if a piece of cotton cloth costs a
dollar, it practically represents a dollar labor cost.
Now, as a general thing, wages in Great Britain are about
one-half what they are in the United States, and the cost of
production of an article in Great Britain is about half what it
costs in the United States. I mean the total cost from one
end to the other and the long line of development and manu
facture.
Mr. BACON. If the Senator w ill pardon me-----Mr. ALDRICH. The cost in Germany is 40 per cent. I will
not stop to question small refinements of difference, but in the
main it is about 40 per cent what it is in the United States.
Mr. BACON. I ask the Senator a question for information,
with his permission. When the Senator says all the labor cost,
does the Senator mean that the capital is but the result of
labor, the previous labor accumulating?
Mr. ALDRICH. Undoubtedly.
Mr. BACON. He does not, then, separate the labor immedi
ately employed from capital?
Mr. ALDRICH. Not at all. I do not think it is fair to make
a comparison of that kind, i t is never fair to make compari
sons of the cost at a single stage of this long process of manu
facture.
Mr. BACON. I am speaking about the capital employed.
Mr. ALDRICH. You can not say, for instance, that if it
costs 10 per cent to transfer yarn into the next step that the
total cost is 10 per cent. That is absolutely plain, I think, to
everybody.
I repeat for the benefit of the Senator from Oklahoma that
the labor cost of all articles produced in the United States will
he at least 90 per cent of the total, and he can figure the differ
ence himself, whatever it may be.
/ Mr. OWEN. I have figured it from our own census, and I
'find that the statement of the Senator from Rhode IslandKin
its application to the point at issue, is not true, and it is lint
approximately true. I w ill state what I find with regard to
the textiles, for instance. I do not wish to say anything which
is discourteous; I do not mean what I say in that way, because
I am not now dealing w ith the Senator from Rhode Island per
sonally, but I am dealing with a public question upon which it
is my duty to speak, and to speak as plainly as I understand it.
I have examined the census reports. I have taken the gross
amount of the products of American manufacturers by the
census of 1900, and I have taken the gross amount of wages
paid. The gross amounts of those products when estimated by
the wages, show that the total amount paid to labor out of some
$13,000,149,159 in value in products (Ab. Census 1900, Table 156)
of manufactures is $2,320,938,168, and the general average of
actual labor cost is 17.8 per cent of the gross value of the
product, and no more. So the percentages do not comport with
the view of the Senator from Rhode Island that 90 per cent
J u n e 7,
of the product is the wages of labor. W hile it is true that a
large part of the gross value of the products, to wit, $7,343,627,875, are m aterials and enter into the calculation, and while
it is relatively true that those materials are also originally
sprung from the hand of labor, and a large part of them may
be classsed in this confused way as the result of labor, still as
far as these manufacturers are concerned that material, which
is raw material for the factory, must be considered as m aterial
alone, and the labor cost of putting those m aterials so manufac
tured into their merchantable form does not exceed 17.8 per cent,
and in the group of textile industries only 19.5 per cent, the
gross product being $1,637,484,484 and the total wages $841,734,399. I call attention to this fact, because I think it is very
important.
—
Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from Oklahoma is new, reason
ably new, anyhow-----Mr. OWEN. Very new, Mr. President.
Mr. ALDRICH. In these tariff discussions. It is a matter
that has been gone over a thousand times, I take it. I suggest
to the Senator that if he takes this proposition over night and
w ill study it, he will find that the cost of production in the
United States of any article that he may choose is 90 per cent
of it at least labor, and he w ill find if he reads the statistics
and digests them carefully that the cost of that labor in the
United States is vastly in excess of what it is in any other
country.
Now, he can figure for himself, he being a bright mathe
matician, what the various problems are with reference to any
particular item, and there can be no other answer given to the
Senator from Oklahoma. He may have a judgment about it
which is entirely different from mine, but that is a matter of
theory, and I presume, if I should take the next six weeks in
discussing it w ith him, he probably would not agree to my judg
ment in regard to it.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
/ Mr. OWEN. I w ill in just one moment. If the Senator from
Rhode Island would show me the authority upon which the dif
ference in the cost of production is based in these paragraphs,
and if the rates proposed really represented the difference in
the cost of production at home and abroad, I should agree with
him and vote for the schedule. But I can demonstrate the
contrary and have done so in the Carroll D. Wright rep ortjn
446 instances, as well as by the census table 156 (Ab. Cen., 1900).'
Mr. BACON. W ill the Senator permit me to ask the Senator
from Rhode Island a question?
/ Mr. OWEN. I w ill yield for a moment to the Senator from
rNew Hampshire.
Mr. GALLINGER. Just a moment. I will ask the Senator
from Oklahoma if he thinks the rates named in the bill are too
high?
—Mr. OWEN. I do.
Mr. GALLINGER. I f they are lowered, it w ill increase the
importations, will it not?
Mr. OWEN. I should think so, Mr. President.
Mr. GALLINGER. Now, Mr. President, wTe imported between
three and four million yards of the articles in this paragraph
last year at a cost of between one and two million dollars.
Does the Senator from Oklahoma want to import some millions
more of those goods and deny the privilege to the American
manufacturer and the American workingman to produce them
in this country?
—“
^ M r . OWEN. No; Mr. President, I do not feel w illing to
deny the American manufacturer any just provision which
would put him upon a perfect equality with other manufac-.
turers of the world.
Mr. GALLINGER. Yes; but if the Senator w ill permit me,
we imported between three and four million yards. I f we re
duce the rates we will, perhaps, import as much more, possibly
even a larger amount than that; and that, of course, will dis
place to that extent employment to American workingmen and
the opportunity of American manufacturers to do business in
this country. Now, if the Senator wants to accomplish that
It, of course these duties ought to be reduced.
v.__ _
Mr. OWEN. In response to the Senator from New Hamphire, I will say that the importations of the goods to which lie
has referred is due to the fact that they fill a matter of want
and a matter of taste of the American consumer, and therefore
are brought into this country. I believe that the goods which
are produced in America w ill find an equal foreign field, due to
the same question o f taste or same question of foreign desire
to have that which is made in our country. I do not believe
that the Americans are peculiar in that respect, but that they,
like all other purchasers, follow the line of their taste in such
matters. I do not believe that if we were to absolutely close
1909
\
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
our ports to all foreign importations we would thereby benefit
our own manufacturers. I believe w e would do them a harm,
because ju st as soon as they had supplied this market they
would then close their factories; they would no longer need to
employ labor; they would no longer have occasion for any other
market than that which would be afforded here.
I do not think that is a w ise policy. The United States ex
ports and imports .are less per capita than any other civilized
nation in the world, and it is because of the narrow policy which
excludes foreign imports and compels foreign people to avoid
purchases from our country.
The only question in this matter which I am constrained to
insist upon is that the pledge which w as made to the American
P - f e shall be faithfully complied with, and that is why I have
' . attention time and time again to the percentage of labor
\n tnese articles, in order to elicit the fact that “ the differ
ing6 in
of I)roduction at home and abroad ” is not the basis
wnl ■
these schedules are being written. It can not be
• „ tmasized too strongly before the Senate and before the people
.United States as to the pledge made to them in the past,
en if it is explained on the floor here, that it w as not inendefl to write this tariff d ow n ; the people of the United States
ought to understand that the pledge made to them is not being
earned o u t; and when I call for “ the difference in the cost of
production ” the Senator from New Hampshire rises in his
s ^ ace and says that the inquiry is absurd.
atV ^^kUIN G ER . Oh, n o ; I did not say that.
, : r' OWEN. I so understood the Senator.
BALLINGER. I beg the Senator's pardon, I did not
s ^ . any criticism of that at all. I simply interrogated the
,. '* '1 as to whether if the rates were reduced the importations woukl not be increased. I find no fault w ith the Senator’s
( norf to get the information that he is seeking, but I am at a
mss to understand why the Senator can not get that on his own'
lim?!
as wel1 as to demand that any other Senator
fchall get it for him.
A '"I1 abundantly supplied, and I shall furnish
Yvi)5,1 T (>1 WI f! tliat information in my early convenience.
Wlicit I am pointing out is not my lack of information I am
’A th a tA heu 1 cnl1 on yon gentlemen who are iJplesenting the party in power to give the percentage of labor
cost m these articles you make no answer, but on the 1
you indulge in general discussion and talk about the labor S
f Europe and the labor cost here, and do not come down to
the real issue. That is w hat I am calling attention to
I will furnish the Senate w ith the percentage of labor cost
Ji A A alrea,ly Pointed out to the Senator from Rhode Island
that the total labor cost, as shown by our own census is 19 5
per cent of the value of the gross product in the textile indus
\ tries of the United States and 17.8 per cent of the S o i value
i f all products of all the industries. That is a fa?t o f vital
.importance recorded in our census reports, and it is not to be
jfiet aside by informing me in a high-handed wav that common
W e w ill tell me that 80 per cent of any product is S o ?
d ^ CeTl T , lsJ ° * he contrary, and the inquiry is not to be
dealt w ith in that manner. I have a right to ask these ques
tions, and I have a right to a frank answer showing what the
percentage of labor cost is in these articles, and showing what
the percentage of labor cost is abroad; and then we can calcu
late the difference in the percentage of labor cost in this coun
try and abroad and thereby determine the tariff rate. W ithout
that data you can not do it. I have a right to demand the
tariff be so written as the Republican party is pledged I do
demand the requisite data, even if I receive no answer.
The PRESID EN T pro tempore. The question is on agreeing
to the paragraph as amended.
The paragraph as amended w as agreed to.
The PR ESID EN T pro tempore. The next paragraph passed
over w ill be reported.
The S ecretary. Paragraph 824. “ Curtains, table covers, and
all articled manufactured of cotton chenille,” etc.
Mr. ALDRICH. For the committee I offer an amendment
which I send to the desk. The effect o f this amendment is to
quite largely reduce the rates of the paragraph, and make it
more consistent, and make it apply surely to the articles which
it w as intended the paragraph as originally drawn should
apply to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment w ill be
stated.
The S ecretary. In line 15, page 112, paragraph 324, after the
words “ chief value,” strike out the remainder of the para
graph arid insert:
Tapestries, anti other Jacquard figured upholstery goods, weighing
over 0 ounces per square yard, composed wholly or in chief value of
cotton or other vegetable fib er; any of the foregoing, In the piece or
otherwise, 50 per cent ad valorem.
2905
Mr. DOLLIVER. I should be very glad to have an oppor
tunity to look at the amendment for a moment.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. We might pass on to the next paragraph,
I suggest.
Mr. ALDRICH. We might take up the next provision I
think.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Is it the Senator’s purpose to have the
amendment printed and go over until to-morrow?
Mr. ALDRICH. I do not object to having it go over if it is
the desire of Senators.
Mr. DOLLIVER. I should be very greatly obliged if that
course is pursued.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I ask that that he done.
Mr. ALDRICH. We can take it up th is evening possibly.
It w as offered by me several days ago.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I had not seen it.
Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator will find it already printed. I
Will have it taken up this evening at the evening session.
Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, the Senator from M issouri
[Mr. S tone ] a few moments ago took occasion to make an
inferential criticism against those of us on this side who could
riot see our way clear to place lumber on the free list, and
delivered his opinion to the effect that a Democrat is bound by
the declaration of the Democratic party in national conven
tion. To that statement, so far as it relates to a principle, I
thoroughly and cordially subscribe, but I have said on another
occasion that I do not believe that a convention of delegates
selected wholly without reference to these m atters of legisla
tive detail have any power to bind the judgment and the con
science of legislators with respect to them. The convention goes
to the full extent of its authority when it names a candidate
/and adopts a platform declaring the principles of the party.
That rule has been generally accepted by men of all parties, but
this acceptance has found a very distinguished exception in the
person of the gentleman who now criticises the Democrats and
whose criticism the Senator from Missouri has echoed.
In 1892 the Democratic national convention expressly and
em phatically declared without reserve or qualification in favor
of a law to repeal the tax of 10 per cent on the issues of state
hanks, or rather, the tax of 10 per cent on institutions which
paid out the notes of state banks, which w as in effect exactly
the same thing. A t that time there sat in the H ouse of Repre
sentatives the Hon. W illiam J. Bryan, representing a Nebraska
district, and, when the Democratic party in the H ouse of
Representatives attempted to fulfill that pledge of the national
Convention, he refused to be bound by it, and voted against that
specific, direct, and positive pledge which the Democratic party
Rad made to the people of the United States and on which it,
had won a great triumph. I have no criticism to make of him
further than to repeat against him and his friends the criticism s
against us in which they now indulge. You w ill find upon an
examination of the R ecord that Mr. Bryan not only refused to
be bound by that declaration, but asserted the doctrine that a
congressional district had the power to bind its representative
against tlie authority of the party in’ national convention assem
bled ; and though Mr. Bryan voted and spoke against the redemp
tion of that pledge, he has been three tim es nominated by the
Democratic party since then for the Presidency of the United
States.
More than that, Mr. President, the question of whether or
not that law, which imposed a tax of 10 per cent upon the
Issues o f state banks, should be repealed, involved, at least
in the opinion of many of us who then sat in the House of
Representatives, a question of principle and not of policy. Two
o f the distinguished judges who heard and decided that case
in the Supreme Court of the United States held the law which
we sought to repeal invalid upon the ground that it invaded
the power of the State to organize corporations and to endow
them w ith such faculties as, in the judgment of the legislature,
might he proper.
Speaking for myself, that was the principle upon which I
voted. I have never believed in bank money, whether issued by
the banks created by tbe General Government or issued by a
corporation created by a State. I have alw ays believed that
the power to issue money is a sovereign power and can not
be properly delegated to individuals or to corporations; but I
also believe that tbe States of this Union have the right and
have the power uuder the Constitution of the United States, if
they see fit, to create a corporation and authorize it to issue
its promissory notes. Those notes can not be made by any law
of any State a legal tender.
No man can be compelled to receive them in the tra n sa ction
of his business, and if lie does accept them, lie a ccep ts them
simply as he would accept my note or the note of another imli
vidual or the note of a corporation. H e takes them v olu n ta rily
and at their value, under no compulsion of any law
I 'have
2906
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE
never seen the time that, as a member of the legislature of
Texas, I would have voted to create a bank corporation and
authorize it to issue its promissory notes; but, as a Member
of Congress, feeling that the Federal Government had no just
constitutional power to destroy a corporation which the State
has the power to create, I voted to repeal that tax of 10 per
cent. It seemed to me to involve a principle. Yet, a t other
gentlemen who thought otherwise I have not deemed it neces
sary to level my criticisms. But when I, and when the ma
jority of Democrats are arraigned by implication because we
do not choose to surrender our conscience and our judgment on
a detail that was in violation of a principle of the Democratic
party, I do not think anybody here or elsewhere can fairly be
heard to assail us.
Mr. President, to illustrate—and I did not say it the other
day because I did not care to say it—to illustrate the folly of
allowing a convention to instruct legislators as to details, I
only need to call attention to the fact that that platform
pledged us to put logs on the free list when logs were already
on the free list. Obviously they did not know what it is nec
essary to do, and I do not think they knew what ought to be
done.
Mr. MONEY. Mr. President, I want first to indorse what
has been said by the Senator from Texas [Mr. B a i l e y ] as to
the freedom of a Senator obeying his own conscience and his
own interpretation of the Constitution in matters of legislation.
I happened to be a Member o f the Congress to which he re
ferred and "voted as did the Senator from Texas for the reasons
which he has so clearly and strongly expressed. I recollect
very well that Mr. Bryan not only voted against that bill, but I
remember^ the reasons which he gave for doing so. I am not
stating this in criticism of Mr. Bryan, but to continue what has
been so well said by the Senator from Texas. I recollect that in
his speech Mr. B rjan stated that the platforms o f parties bound
only the candidates who were running upon them and did not
bind any Representative in Congress. I think I am correct
about that.
^ r* £ AILEY- ?^ e ®ena-tor from Mississippi is exactly cor
rect. That was his statement.
Mr. MONEY. W ill the Senator from Texas please find the
passage and read it in my time?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes, s i r ; I will, i t is as follow s:
J une 7
if they had been proclaimed in every convention from the time
of Thomas Jefferson to Jeff Davis, because they are not what I
believe to be necessary in a platform. In my opinion, a party
platform should be a plain, clear, explicit declaration of prin
ciples and great policies, and should never enter into details of
legislation, and not have any arguments or illustrations. I t is
not necessary. The fewer holes the fewer pegs you w ill have
to put in them of doubt, misgiving, and misconstruction.
So long as I shall be the servant of the people of Mississippi,
I shall obey but one command, and that is of the legislature of
my State. When that legislature sends me a message, a com
mand which I can not obey, I w ill tender them my commission
and let them put a man here who w ill do s o ; but until that time
I declare now my absolute independence of everybody and every
thing. I am alw ays glad, however, to go with those who agree
with me, never conceding it to be possible at any time that I
can forsake the Democratic party, for there is nowhere else on
earth for me or anybody like me to go.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I disclaim any purpose in what
I said to-day to criticise, inferentialiy or otherwise, anything*
done by any Senator here. The Senator from Texas [Mr.
B allet] says that he denies the right of. any convention by a
declaration of party policy to bind the judgment or conscience
of a Senator.
Mr. BAILEY. W ill the Senator permit me-----The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. M c C umber in the chair).
Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from
Texas?
Mr. STONE. I do.
Mr. BAILEY. Of course the Senator desires to state me
accurately.
Mr. STONE. Certainly.
Mr. BAILEY. I said to bind the conscience or judgment of a
Senator upon the details of legislation, not upon the policy of
the party.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, undoubtedly, whether stated in
one form or another, that is a question which addresses itself to
every Senator. I f a declaration should be made in a party
platform that a Senator’s judgment and conscience could not
approve, and he should refuse to subscribe to it, I do not con
sider it within my province here to call him to account. I have
not attempted, nor shall I now attempt, to censure or criticise
I t lias been stated th at every Democrat Is In duty bound to vote for what other Senators may say or do. I shall do as I think
the repeal of the state-bank tax, because of the plank relating to that
subject adopted by the la st Democratic national convention. A plat right, and I assume that others w ill do the same.
form can only bind those who run upon It.
Mr. President, I have no commission to speak in defense of
President Cleveland is, of course, pledged to the repeal of the tax, Mr. Bryan or in eulogy of him. I have the honor of being
because he accepted a nom ination and an election unon the national
Democratic platform of 1892. Those also are pledgeT to repea” whose his friend, but not any more than I have the honor of being the
nominating conventions indorsed the national platform, and those are friend of Senators upon this floor.
perhaps bound also who ran as Democrats w ithout expressly repudiat
I agree to what the Senator from Texas said about the re
ing th at part ot the national platform. In my own ease I was not only
nominated before the adoption of the national platform by the Chicago peal of the state bank tax. I f I had been in the House of
convention, but I expressly repudiated in my canvass the plank which Representatives at that time I would have acted in concert
declared in favor of repealing the state-hank tax. ^
w ith that Senator, and for the same reasons he has given.
Mr. Bryan w as not in my thought when I had the floor a
Mr. MONEY. Mr. President, that is about as I recollect it.
It w as not worth while on my part to call it to the attention little while ago. Mr. President, although I am Mr. Bryan’s
friend
and greatly admire him, I do not think that his record
of the Senate, but since the subject has been introduced, I want
as a party man—and I am going to state this deliberatively—
to supplement what the Senator from Texas Las said.
I want to say further to the Senate that I have no criticism gives him license to read lectures to Democrats who on this
to make of any member on this side or on the other side of the floor or in the House of Representatives may act on their own
Chamber. I shall certainly exercise the right for m yself to judgment and their own consciences, even though they may
construe the Constitution and the platform and everything else not strictly observe the declarations of a party platform. He
by my light, and not by the light of any other man here or else has not been overcareful in that respect himself. But sir, I
where ; and I freely accord to others the privilege which I shall am not controlled in my judgment or utterances by Mr. Bryan
always exercise.
or by any other man, and I do not quite fancy an intimation
I w ant to say further, Mr. President, that there is hardly any that I am. I think, speak, and vote on my own responsibility.
Mr. President, I was on the committee that made the Den
man here or elsewhere who does not like approbation. The
sweetest plaudit that can meet the public servant is the declara ver platform last year. When the platform w as in process of
formulation
I opposed putting into it a declaration about a mere
tion “ Well d o n e ” from his own constituency; but above all is
the approval of his own conscience, the maintenance of his self- detail of legislation.
I thought it was unwise and impolitic, and I have not changed
respect and o f his intellectual integrity. If he has these, he
can defy criticism and censure from any quarter whatever. I t my opinion about that; but tbe platform w as made and pro
is to be noted—and I did not intend to enter into any such dis mulgated by the supreme tribunal of the Democratic party,
cussion or to bring it before the Senate, but I wall say it, now and, while I do not criticise what others may do, and had not
that I am up that the criticism which has been severest upon that in mind when I was speaking this afternoon, I can not re
the Democratic part o f the Senate for voting a small duty of 25 treat now from the position I then took—that, in my opinion,
cents per ton on iron ore and $1 a thousand feet on rough lum the declaration of a national convention as to party policy and
ber, and so on, came from Democratic papers that never did in principle is entitled to and should receive the support of Sen
dorse or support the candidacy of Sir. Bryan at any time and ators and Members of the House who have been elected by that
never approved a thing in his platforms except this part of this party. But what I had in mind when I was talking at that
time w as not the thing to which the Senator from Texas [Mr.
one.
I want to say further—it is not necessary to say it, because I B ailey ] or the Senator from M ississippi [Mr. M oney ] referred;
am committing myself probably to a position which w ill elicit but I had reference particularly to the controversy that was
more criticism, to which I am indifferent—but I w ill say that raging on the other side about the Chicago platform. ,
there are other things in that platform which, if embodied in a
The Republican party had declared in its platform adopted
bill brought before the Senate, I would never vote for. Not a t Chicago in favor of constructing a new tariff law on the
only would I not vote for them, but I would not vote for them I basis of the difference in the cost of production in America and
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
above-named articles, 35 per cent ad valorem ; valued a t above 60 cents
per pound, 45 cents per pound, and in addition thereto, 40 per cent ad
valorem.
Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, I desire the Senate to under
stand distinctly tliat th is amendment is the prevailing phrase
ology of paragraph 355 o f the Allison-Aldrich bill o f 1888. I
desire to say further that the Senator from Rhode Island is in
error when he says that there was any difference in the wool
duties on the scheme and schedule of that bill as compared
to the McKinley Act or the present proposed bill that would
explain this variation in the duties on blankets and these cheap
cloths.
Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from Iowa is mistaken in his
last statement. The duty on wools of the third class by the
L ° f i 888 w as 2 i cents a pound.
pOLLIVER. E xactly; but-----** ^kDRICH . Any Senator at all fam iliar w ith the classincatum of wools knows that third-class wools then, as now,
enter largely into the manufacture of blankets—more largely
1
.aUy otXier class of wools.
hi i pU L L IV E R . That is true, possibly, of some kind of
Diankets, and especially horse blankets; but the duty on first
and second class wool-----Mr. A L D R IC H .
On a ll blankets.
vr POLLIVER. I t is exactly now as in 1888.
class ALDltICH - ° n tlle flrst and second, but not on the third
h v ^ P ° LLIVER’ The (luty on a11 these aoils, wastes, and
bj-pioducts is exactly the same.
Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, no.
m iiK , D 0L L IV E R- I beg the Senator’s pardon; I have the
mil before me.
Mr. ALDRICH- So have I.
*X5’ DOLLIVER. On top waste, roving waste, slubbind
gar netted waste, 30 cents per pound, just as that duty!
although they did make a small concession in behalf of woolen,'
rags, making them 10 cents, as I desired to do yesterday but «
ed J1 sXor“ of indignation from the Senator' from
Utah and the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SMOOT. The duty on woolen rags is 10 cents a nnnml
>w. What the Senator fr o m Town
^ tS .a P ° u n <4
now’
n
o ^ fr v F T ? 611!I think
^ I ought
IovTa to
wanted
w as it6 cents.
Mr. DOLLIVER.
DOLLIVER.
have had
Mr. SMOOT. The Senator w as not stating the facts
w e re ; that is all.
Lls as th ey
Mr. D O L L IV E R . N ow , M r. P residen t, the a c t o f 1888 ™
ceived a t the hands o f th e w ise st a n d best m en w e h a d t h m i
n ot a fe w d ay s atten tion n or a fe w w eeks, bu t atten tion m o n th
a f.t®1’
d a y an d night, as the S enator fr o m R h o d e Isla n d
w ill te stify. W h a t I ask n ow is th at he p erm it m e to m ake
the sam e criticism o f the b ill th a t is pend ing here th at he an d
M l. A lliso n
m ade o f the M ills bill, th at it p u t th e hea v iest
d u ties upon the bla n k ets an d clotkin"- o f th e h n m h i. a
the TTnitori
T
cieLm iig or Uie n u m ble p eople o f
d fim n im i!f
atW iVh° Were V0t a j t t0 bear bbem. T h a t is
uem agogy now , and a m au a lm ost gets o u t o f h is n a r tv fo r
su ym g that now . Y et the c r itic is m lm iflod hu
R h o d e Island on t l e S
MU w a s £ 2
rates o f duty it bore w ith such hardship on the p oor that the
Aldrich
Borah
Bourne
Bradley
Brandegee
Briggs
Bulkeley
Burnham
Burrows
Burton
Carter
B ailey
Clarke, Ark.
Culberson
Daniel
Dixon
NAYS— 43.
Gamble
Guggenheim
Heyburn
Johnson, N. Dak.
Kean
Lodge
MeEnery
Nixon
D illin g h a m
Oliver
du Pont
Page
F lint
Penrose
Gallinger
NOT VOTING— 19
Jones
Elkins
McCumber
Fletcher
Money
Foster
Richardson
Frye
Shively
Hale
Clark, Wyo.
Crane
Crawford
Cullom
Curtis
Depew
Dick
3037
Perkins
P iles
Root
Scott
Smith, Mich.
Smoot
Stephenson
Sutherland
Warner
Warren
Sm ith, S. C.
Stone
Tillman
Wetmore
So Mr. D o l l i v e r ’s amendment w as rejected.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The paragraph is agreei
The Secretary w ill read the next paragraph.
Mr. OWEN. Before the paragraph is agreed to, I desire to
offer an amendment
The PRESID EN T pro tempore. The Senator is offering an
amendment to paragraph 375?
Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir.
_
„ .
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair w ill regard the
paragraph as open.
_ , ,
Mr. SCOTT. I thought paragraph 37o had been adopted.
It w ill liave to be reconsidered if the Senator w ants to move to
amend it.
_
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair w ill regard the
question as open.
’
Mr. LODGE. The Senator from Oklahoma rose before the
agreement was announced,
, , . ,
,. ■. . ■■—■
Mr OWEN. I do not think it is absolutely essential for a
Senator to rise in his place instantly in order to offer an amend
ment, and I do not agree to the rule of the Senate suggested
by the Senator from M a s s a c h u s e t t s .
____
J
Mr LODGE. I quite agree if it had been agreed to it ought
to be left open, and I think the Senator was before the time.
Mr. OWEN. I was simply answering the suggestion of the
Senator from M assachusetts that it might not be offered even
if it bad been agreed to.
. .. . x „
Mr LODGE. I did not mean to suggest that at all.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment proposed
by the Senator from Oklahoma will be read.
The S e c r e t a r y . It is proposed to add at the end of para
graph 375 the follow ing:
T hat the rate fixed on all articles enumerated In this paragraph shall
reduced 5 ner cent ner annum of the rate fixed in th is act, annually
mi .Tune 30 ter S
of the next ensuing ten fiscal years: P rovided,
T hat if such graduated reduction shall cause a dim inution of the annual
revenue
_
revenue iron,
from au,
any one U1
or ______
more of the above enumerated articles, the
President is authorized and directed to fix the rate on any such article
or articles at the point at which such article or articles severally
i“L f o,ind to have the greatest normal revenue-producing power, but
‘not at a rate higher than the rate fixed in this a c t: P rovided fu rth er
T hat the rate shall not be reduced or fixed below the point a t which
it would produce an amount equal to the difference in the cost of the
p^ oct,on of any rach artlcIeV tte Umted States or abroad’
M r- O W E N . M r. President, I shall_ not ask for a yea-;and-nay
shall be content w ith its
Senate had rendered the country a r e a f "service"wheiTthev vote on this proposed amendment
modified those rates.
being voted down by tbe majority, by the usual majority sup^
But I do not care to debate it, I simply desire the yeas and t Porting the committee,
Mr. ALDRICH.
I think it is desirable to have a yea-and-nay
nays on the proposition to go back to the Allison bill rather than
‘
T
vote on the proposition. I would be very glad to have a yeaio some subsequent or previous measure.
,-----pr—Ih e PRESID EN T pro tempore. On this amendment the and-nay vote.
/ M r . OWEN. I have no objection to a yea-and-nay vote, b e
senator from Iowa demands the yeas and nays.
1 he yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded fore that is taken, I shall therefore briefly explain its purport.
The theory of the majority, as expressed by the platrorm ot
to call th e roll.
^
Mr. FLINT (when his name w as called). I again announci 1904, is as follow s:
The measure of protection should alw ays Jit least equal the diffeience
m y pair with the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. C u l b e r s o n ]
in the cost of production a t home and abroad.
The roll call w as concluded.
The platform of 1908 asserts that—
Mr. FOSTER (a fte r having voted in th e affirm ative). I it
n u ire ,if Hie,senior Senator from North Dakota [Mr. M cC umber
has voted?
£ ' t " e p t h r ? o « of fS 3 » 2 tlo a „ t home end
to o t h e r w ith „
1he PR ESID EN T pro tempore. The Chair is informed tha ; reasonable profit—
tlie Senator has not voted.
And so forth.
, ,
.
Mr. FOSTER. Then I withdraw my vote.
Now, Mr. President, in the particular paragraph on blankets
Mr. FLINT. I am paired w ith the senior Senator fron and flannel for underwear, paragraph 375, tbe rates run from
Texas [Mr. C u l b e r s o n ] . I transfer that pair to the junior 107.60 per cent on blankets valued at not more than 40 cents
Senator from Montana [Mr. D i x o n ] and vote “ nay.”
per pound up to 165 per cent on blankets more than 3 yards
Tlie result w as announced—yeas 29, nays 43, a s fo llo w s:
in length valued a t more than 40 cents per pound.
Y E A S — 29.
I wish to call the attention of the Senate and of the country
Bacon
Clay
Ln Follette
Rayner
to tbe actual labor cost In blankets. Tbe report of Carroll D.
Bankhead
Cummins
McLaurin
Simmons
Wright,
to which I have heretofore called attention, on the
Beveridge
D avis
Martin
Sm ith, Md.
matter of blankets In case No. 390, puts tbe labor cost at 15 per
Bristow
Doliiver
Nelson
Taliaferro
Brown
Frazier
New lands
Taylor
cent of tlie value o f the product, and yet th is bill puts the tariff
B urkett
Gore
Overman
at over 100 per cent on the bald pretense of protecting American
Chamberlain
Hughes
Owen
Clapp
Johnston, Ala.
Paynter
3 0 38
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
J u n e 10,
Mr. BEVERIDGE. W ill the Senator permit me?
In case No. 391 of blankets the total cost of labor in trans
forming the materials is 15 per cent, and yet the pending bill ^-•Mr. OWEN. I will, with pleasure.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. Does not the Senator make this distinc
puts this rate at exceeding 100 per cent on the pretense of prol tecting American labor.
tion, that in the case of the maximum and minimum provision to
which
he is now calling attention, as in the case of the m axi
In case No. 392 the total labor cost is 18 per cent, and yet
this bill puts the rate at over 100 per cent on the pretense of mum and minimum provision in one section of the present law,
protecting labor.
the legislature fixes its w ill and the Executive becomes the
The Senator from Rhode Island, representing the Committee.* instrument of the legislature in applying that w ill under cerl Finance, on last Monday stated on the floor of the Senate; tain contingencies, whereas in the amendment the Senator pro— ■------- these
3 l J poses the President is not directed to fix any specific rates, thus
that the labor cost
wasoa
80 tor»/v
90_ per cent of- all
products^
in the face of this official report in answer to a resolution of thes carrying out specifically the legislative w ill as its executive
Senate saying that the labor cost of these blankets is 15 perl instrument, but is authorized to fix rates of his own? The
; cent, and yet a rate of 105 per cent is put upon the blankets ini Senator observes that distinction.
order to give a monopoly to those who manufacture blankets in
Mr. OWEN. I do not.
this country and enable them to levy a tax upon people who
Mr. BEVERIDGE. Then of course-----Ir. OWEN. There is a distinction without a difference,
must use blankets for their protection against the inclemency
of winter’s weather.
'
,,
j
Ir. President. The spirit and purpose of both is substantially
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President-----the same, that the legislative w ill is recorded and the Executive
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from is required to carry it out. Every Executive must e&ercistp
Oklahoma yield to the Senator from Montana ?
some degree of discretion.
/ M r . OWEN. With great pleasure.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. But the first thing I observe in the Sen
Mr. CARTER. I ask the Senator whether in his judgment ator’s amendment is that from line 7 to the semicolon on line
the proposal presented by his amendment could not be made 11 it authorizes the President to perform all the legislative
applicable to every paragraph in this bill; that is, vest in the power which we might perform ourselves. Of course, the
President discretion to reduce duties below the rate fixed in Senator can perceive that fixing the tariff rates at whatever
the paragraph when in his judgment the revenue would not we like is purely a legislative power. This authorizes and di
thereby be impaired and the best revenue-producing point could rects the President not to apply a definite and specific rate
be reached?
fixed by ourselves, but any rate that he sees fit to fix in his dis
^ Mr. OWEN. Undoubtedly, Mr. President, that could be done. cretion. In other words, the executive mind is directed to per
Mr. CARTER. Then, Mr. President, I desire to ask the form the functions of the legislative mind.
Senator if it would not be more simple to make the tariff bill
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President-----—<—v
consist of about three sentences, providing that the ad valorem
Ir. OWEN. I w ill yield with pleasure to the Senator frona
rate on all articles presented to the custom houses for entrance Montana when I have answered his colleague from Indiana.’
into the United States should be fixed at, say, 200 per cent, pro In this particular paragraph, item 1, blankets not mote than 40
vided that the President may reduce the rate below that amount cents per pound, the legislative w ill is 107.6 per cent ad
when in his discretion the public revenues w ill thereby be bene valorem. The legislative will under my proposed amendment
fited?
next year would be 5 per cent less, which is as absolutely and
I Mr. OWEN. H as the Senator concluded?
mathematically an expression of the legislative w ill as it is pos
' Mr. CARTER. I have concluded. Why engage in these mul sible to give. So, in each succeeding year the diminution is
tifarious paragraphs and subdivisions if we could prescribe a mathematically accurate, with a proviso, however, that when
maximum ad valorem duty for the admission of all articles at it goes below the maximum revenue-producing point it shall no
the custom-houses, leaving the discretion with the President to longer be lowered, but the legislative w ill requires it to be defi
reduce the duties when in his opinion such reductions would nitely fixed at the maximum revenue-producing point found by
not impair the revenue, but would reach the best revenue- means of this series of successive reductions. Therefore the
producing point upon each article’
Executive would be merely carrying out the legislative w ill and
Mr. GALLINGER. A sliding scale.
he would be an Executive and not a legislator. I yield to the
Mr. CARTER. A sliding scale. In other words, we could no
Senator from Montana.
.....- ^
tell from day to day what the duty would be next week on any
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana [Mr.
particular article unless we were advised of what the Presi B everidge] presents the facts upon a minimum rate with which
dent’s opinion might be a t that future date.
the discretion of the President may operate; the Senator from
j\U'. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President____
Oklahoma [Mr. O w e n ] presents a maximum rate, and leaves
Mr. OWEN. I w ill answer the Senator from Montana first’ the President w ith unrestrained discretion down to nothing or a
. and yield to the Senator from Indiana second.
complete abolition of duty altogether. I w ill say to the Senator
In answer to the suggestion of the Senator from Montana, I from Oklahoma that, in the case of the reciprocity agreement,
replyit that
w ill legislative
be remembered
power that
can not
a treaty
be vested
w as in
required
the Executive,
in orderi it
to win oe reinem
-Air. CARTER. Mr. President-----—— ”7 / put the new rate into effect. The Constitution provides that
Mr. OWEN. Excuse me, Mr. President. I w ill answer theN treaties shall constitute the supreme law of the la n d ; and I
Senator from Montana first and yield to the Senator from Mon doubt very much whether, without consulting Congress or fram
tana second.
'
ing a treaty, it w ill be competent for the President of the United
Executive power is vested in the executive and legislative, States, even under the minimum and maximum provisions, to
'power is vested in the legislative branch of the Government. change a rate of duty where the Constitution vests the supreme
No one understands that more distinctly than the Senator from power in Congress in this matter of taxation.
Oklahoma.
, Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I w ill now, with the peri
But it is not vesting in the President of the United States rof the Senator from Montana, ask him a question. How
legislative power when he is directed by the legislative power he justify 165 per cent ad valorem when the cost of lal
to do a certain thing in a certain contingency. I w ill place in ;tlie material is but 15 per cent?
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, I was one of the auditors of
the R ecord the decisions o f the Supreme Court of the United
States on that point for the information of the Senate and, ’the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. L a F ollette] last night, and
.incidentally, for the information of the Senator from M ontana/ heard him remark that the cost to the manufacturer of agri
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President-----cultural implements had increased, as far as steel products
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Okla were concerned, over 100 per cent since the Dingley law wept into
homa yield to the Senator from Montana?
operation. I could have assisted him somewhat on that in an
i Mr. OWEN. I yield, with pleasure.
other illustration. The cost of wool has increased during the
* Mr. CARTER. If a legislative power can be vested in the operation o f the Dingley law 260 per cent, and measured by
President, as this amendment proposes, why not a considerable the price of wool to-day it has increased 275 per cent. The
amount of legislative power or all legislative power?
increase in the cost of the raw material w as the difference
/ ' Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I w ill answer the Senator front between the conditions, doubtless, to which the Senator refers
' Montana by calling his attention to the fact that this very bill \ and conditions that have come to pass under the present law..,
proposes to vest in the President the right to reduce a pro 'Mr. OWEN. I do not know whether or not the Senator from
posed additional 25 per cent tax upon all goods at his discretion,
lontana intends to be humorous, but I should like him to make
and if the objection to my proposed amendment of the Senator
urn answer to my question.
from Montana is well taken, it is equally well taken to th N Mr. CARTER. I should like to know what the Senator from
25 per cent maximum and minimum amendment of the com-* Oklahoma refers to specifically. I undoubtedly assume that the
Senator has in his mind some peculiar phase of industrial life,
mittee itself.
k
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3039
where a particular by-product, or some article, is produced at a month, while out in our country he must have as good a bill
lo cents, for instance, and that the duty, according to his of fare as they give in the ordinary hotel in W ashington, or he
method of calculation of the matter, amounts to what—60 per w ill not stay by the job. These differences from the beginning
cent?
must be computed and considered, in order to ascertain the ele
*Mr: OWEN. To ICO per cent.
ments O f C O S t.
Mr. GA lt TER. To 160 per cent; or the duty, for instance, on / Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, they were considered as far as
wool at 11 cents.
justified by common sense when the calculation w as made by
•rf-'TSlr. OWEN. The.Senator evidently did not hear my question. Carroll D. Wright. He puts the labor cost of producing yarn,
Mr. CARTER. I wanted to say to the Senator that the duty for example, to which I call the Senator’s attention, and which
on wool, as the price stood with us in 1897, is now in the neigh bears directly upon th is matter—because I call his attention to
borhood of 200 per cent, and jret it is a perfectly fair duty and the fact that even as to woolen yam Carroll D. Wright, in Table
t SK+?unt^y kas prospered under its operations. In the case 430, puts the cost of the labor of transforming m aterials at 2.6
nf noo SS in tbe mind ° f t he Senator the application of a duty cents per pound for No. 1 yarn and 45.22 per cent for the cost
the levy61 Cen^ instead of 60 per cent would, by its fruits, justify of material, less than 6 per cent of the cost of the finished prod-^_nct being for labor.
Mr. BACON. W ill the Senator from Oklahoma permit me
Mr. President, I understand the Senator from
• to h ana> m hxing the rates on the paragraph in question, not to ask the Senator from Montana one question, not to interrupt
I nr,/i ° £Uloed by the difference in the cost o f production at home further than a question?
J and abroad at all?
^
P^Tr. OWEN. W ith pleasure.
Mr. BACON. Does the Senator from Montana think that, in
eonnV, G^ RTElt- Mr. President, the highest markets this
n u y lias ever been inflicted with, so far as the consumer order that the sheep herders of Montana shall be furnished
cnneerned, have been the markets when controlled by the w ith board on the scale of a Washington hotel, the price of wool
well t 1 mamifactnrer and jobber. The Senator from Oklahoma should be raised to all the consumers of the United States, so
eu knows that when we shipped in iron rails here of English that that purpose may be effected?
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, if you elim inate the sheep
ArUti^c^ure we
$130 a ton for them and more.
herder of the country altogether and cut out the 311,000,000
Hf1' n \
N G E li. We paid $170 a ton a t one time.
BARTER. Y e s; at one time we paid $170 a ton. We did pounds of wool we contribute to the factories of the country,
. mabufacture a single steel rail in th is country. To-day you w ill pay more for your wool than you are paying for it
_
unuer this “ oppressive ta r iff” to which the Senator refers! to-day.
Mr. BACON. But the Senator from Montana does not deem
fr T. K kuymg the best steel rails manufactured in the world
it
w
ise
to
answer
that
question
yes
or
no.
about 15 per cent of the cost of the old iron rails.
—Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia pro
jt Mr. OWEN. And about $8 a ton more than the manufact^iurers sell the same rails to foreigners, Mr. President
V poses to settle a great, far-reaching economic question w ith the
.answer “ yes ” or “ no.” That, I think, is one of the elementary
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President-----_
y^M r. OWEN Our people pay about $8 more than the foreign- ^difficulties with the Senator’s school of political economy in deal
e is pay for the same rails. The Senator from Montana, how- ing w ith these questions. Each matter is taken in an isolated
a a s ™ered my question. I ask bim whether or not state, without any reference whatever to the surrounding condi
m the cost of Production in this coun- tions’ and circum stances; for instance, the standard of living,
O y an d ab ro ad shall control in these m atters, a n d I have illu s the standard of civilization, the education of the people, the
tra te d it by pointing o u t th a t th e labor cost on these w o o le n manner of feeding and clothing them in this country, we think
ought to be maintained. The maintenance of the standard, how
r S T p r /e n t5
20 Per “ “*• “ nd y« *t e *"'>«
ever, embraces certain costs in every avenue of life and en
^ Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, undoubtedly the purnose nf deavor which do not apply to the rice-eating m illions of
eglslation on the protective basis is to equalize the S i n c e
China; yet, if the Senator’s theory should be carried into
in the cost of production here and abroad.
uerence effect the cotton of Georgia and South Carolina, instead of
/ l 7 Mr; °W E N . Now, Mr. President, I cail the Senator's often W in g manufactured in that country into merchantable shape,
/ t r I I n he fact ,t hat the C0st 0f labor in these M arkets is fJlm 'would be shipped to China, where the labor determines the
( th * “° POr Cent ’ and 1 ask hiru fi°w he justifies putting unon / element of cost to the best possible advantage of anywhere in
I j 11: over and above the total cost of American labor an addi
the world.
Mr. BACON. The Senator from Montana w ell knows the
\ 'I0™ ' tari« of from 80 to 140 per cent ad valorem up to ^
V to 165 per cent duty?
1 w -UJU fact, Mr. President, that the labor employed in the production of
Mr CARTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma ic cotton does not receive the hundredth part of a m ill of benefit
cahudating the hard-time wages of 1897 and 1898 as the basis from the protective tariff.
Mr. CARTER. I refer to the cotton mills, Mr. President. It
abroad ^ t o - S y . Wag6S’
Comparin^ them "’ith the wages
is not a new idea. As a matter of fadt, the cotton of the M issis
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, on the contrary, I am agreeing, sippi V alley has been for over ten years in process of shipment
so rar as this calculation is concerned, that the labor cost of up along the M ississippi River to St. P aul; thence across the
rue European product is absolutely nothing, and I call the a t country to Seattle; thence across the ocean to Japan, where
tention of the Senator from Montana that the increase o f wool cotton fabrics are being manufactured by labor so low that it
price since 1S9S. the date of Commissioner of Labor W right’s is appalling to contemplate the reduction of American workmen
report, up to 1907 has not been greater than the reported in to the stan dard; and if you take down the barriers and consider
crease of labor, so his percentages are not affected by such/ these workmen separate and apart from the civilization and
changes.
~7
conditions under which we live, of course you would, as a pure
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, it w as pretty nearly nothing m atter o f economy, leave the southern people to raise the cotton,
in this country on the date the Senator’s figures were made. In dism antle the factories in the South and in New England, and
1897 there were men in the country who could not get a day’s ship the cotton to the Orient, where it can be manufactured
work if they were w illing to take a plate of soup as compen cheapest.
sation.
w.
Mr. BACON. Is that the Senator’s answer to my question
hether or not the sheep herder of Montana should be furnished
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, that does not answer the ques
Washington City hotel board at the expense of the people of
tion at all, because the labor w ages of that time— in 1897—are
he United States?
clearly sh ow n ; and w hile it is true that in 1S96 the market
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, that sheep herder is entitled
price of the whole world w as at a low tide because of the pre
ceding panic of 1893, it is not true that the cost of labor in per to good treatment. H e is a part of a mighty sy stem ; he is a
cen ta g es to value of product is now above w hat it then was. >»•«« part of the economy of the country. It, is believed that, in
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, in the production of a blanket order to maintain a supplemental food supply to put the country
the Senator w ishes to make the comparison w ith the last man- where it can raise its own clothing, and thus maintain a certain
who touches the blanket in the factory. In order to estim ate coveted measure of industrial independence, that even a t the ex
the cost of production it is necessary to go back to the sheep pense of paying our sheep herders more than the South African
herder on the plains. That sheep herder in our competing coun native gets, we ought still to keep them employed.
try in South Africa receives $3.66 a month, while out on the
Mr. BACON. I f the Senator from Oklahoma will pardon
plains in this country he receives $40 a month. Down in South me—and I w ill not trespass further on his time— I w ant to
Africa he receives u sack of corn and a sheep to board him for say to the Senator from Montana that it is indeed a mighty
3040
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
J u n e 10
system which is so compact and so powerful that it can levy conference with his associates upon the other side of the
taxes upon 80,000,000 people in order to benefit less than Chamber, because it looks to me like an entirely new departure
5,000,000.
in tariff legislation, and it might revolutionize parties if it
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, may I now ask the Senator should be adopted. I am anxious to get a vote upon it as soon
from Georgia a question?
asypossible.
f Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from r Mr. OWEN. Before the vote is taken I w ill pursue the in
^Montana to ask a question of the Senator from Georgia.
quiry which I made of the Senator from Montana and which
Mr. CARTER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I he so skillfully side stepped that he got into the Chinese labor
inquire of the Senator from Georgia whether he would, in question and the sheep herders of South Africa before it ended.
order to get wool cheaper, reduce the American sheep herder I now desire to ask a question of the Senator from Rhode
to $3.66 a month in open competition with the South African Island, who is the chairman of the Committee on Finance,
native?
who knows all about cost, and who was kind enough last Mon
Mr. BACON. I would put the Montana sheep herder exactly day night to advise me that the labor cost of materials was
where the Georgia cotton laborer is—making his living by the between 80 and 90 per cent, and kind enough to invite me to
sw eat of his brow, and receiving pay according to the value of take the matter into prayerful consideration and go home and
his labor. I do not propose to ask that the people of Montana study it over and overcome my being new in the discussion
shall be taxed for the purpose of paying the wages of the of the tariff. He suggested that I w as very new to the tariff
Georgia cotton laborer, nor do I desire that the people of Georgia debate, and therefore must be excused if somewhat irrational.
shall be taxed in order to pay the wages of the Montana sheep I agree with him in his compassionate regard for a new Mem
herder.
ber, and hope that if anything I say seems to be unlearned or
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, I hope the Montana sheepf unsound, it may be considered as due to my inexperience in
herder will never be compelled to work for the wages paid th e the discussion of the tariff.
Georgia cotton-field hand. I wish his wages could be better;
Mr. ItAYNER. Mr. President-----but the cotton production is, I think, the greatest monopoly of
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from
all the crops in the world, and I am glad we have the monopoly Oklahoma yield to the Senator from Maryland?
in the United States.
U-Mr. OWEN. Excuse me, Mr. President.
Mr. BACON. “ Monopoly,” Mr. President, when it has to
Mr. RAYNER. W ill the Senator allow me?
meet in the markets of the world the prices of the w orld! The
OWEN. I would prefer not to yield now, but I will
Senator does not weigh his words.
yield to the Senator.
Mr. CARTER. The area within which cotton-----Mr. RAYNER. All that I desired w as th is: I dislike to
, Mr. OWEN. I decline to yield further to this interesting col- disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma, but his amend
(loquy of the Senators from Montana and Georgia.
ment strikes me as absolutely invalid. I think it goes
Mr. CARTER. The area within which cotton can be grown is
so circumscribed on the globe that the monopoly is a natural one. directly-----OWEN. I decline to yield for a speech by the Senator
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma '
A
declines to yield further.
riio m aMaryland.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma
Mr. ALDRICH. W ill the Senator from Oklahoma allow me
declines to yield further.
to ask the Senator from Georgia a question’
Ir. OWEN. Mr. President, the Senate has fallen infoT a
OWEN. With great pleasure.
ractice, when a Senator is making an argument and trying
Mr. ALDRICH. I am afraid this great proposition of the
to
establish a proposition, of incursive discussion that leads
Senator from Oklahoma is getting obscured in this debate, and
the speaker far afield from that which he is attempting to
I am anxious-----establish. I should like to courteously suggest that, as a
v-Mr. OWEN. It w ill not remain so.
ule of propriety, this practice would be “ more honored in the
Mr. ALDRICH. And I am anxious to know whether the
Senator from Georgia is engaging in this debate for the pur breach than the observance.” I do not think it is courteous to
pose of supporting the Senator from Oklahoma or for other Senators on the floor, when they are trying to establish a
proposition, to introduce a side issue leading them far away
reasons? We are not able to distinguish.
from that which they are discussing. W hile I am always
Mr. BACON. I did not hear the question.
Mr. ALDRICH. I was wondering whether the Senator from m xious to be perfectly considerate of every Senator while I
Georgia w as opposing or supporting the proposition of the Sen tm on the floor, and w ill always yield for any reasonable
luestion, I do not think that the practice to which I have reator from Oklahoma?
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I was not paying attention par ■erred ought to be pursued in the Senate. I have often felt
ticularly to the debate that w as being maintained by the Sen ike entering protest against it, and I do so now. ^_
y Mr. GORE. Mr. President-----ator from Oklahoma, but I did catch-----Mr. ALDRICH. I w as a little afraid the Senator was ig
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from
Oklahoma yield to his colleague?
norant—
Mr. BACON. But I did catch the most remarkable proposi
\r r OWEN. For a question.
tion which was made by the Senator from Montana [Mr. ^ M r . GORE. Mr. President, I think it would be material if
Carter], that the sheep herders of Montana were entitled to the Senator from Montana or the Senator from Wyoming would
be paid wages which would enable them to get board equal to state w hat the price of wool w as last September. The Senator
the board of any hotel in Washington City, and I knew that from Montana has stated that it is 200 per cent more now than
if that w as done my people would have to pay part of the it w as in 1897. I should like some one to state the price of
expense. That was what I w as protesting against.
wool in Wyoming and Montana last September.
Mr. ALDRICH. I may not be a good judge of these proposi
Mr. CARTER rose.
tions, but I think the proposition of the Senator from Okla ^M r. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from Montana.
homa is much more strange than the one suggested by the
Mr. CARTER. Mr. President, I can not definitely state what
Senator from Montana.
the market price w as last September, but my recollection is
Mr. BACON. The Senator from Oklahoma is quite capable
that the market price w as about 18 to 20 cents per pound; it
of dealing w ith this question him self without my interposition,
is about 24 cents now. The price in 1896 and 1897 ran down
and I do not intend to interpose. I w as simply struck by that
remarkable proposition of the Senator from Montana. I am to about 6 or 8 cents per pound.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, just a word,
glad the Senator has made it, because it illustrates more per
fectly than I have heard in this debate the iniquities of a pro j . Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. GORE. I happened to be in Wyoming last September,
tective-tariff system, by which in one State the laborer shall
be paid wages which would give him board at the New Willard, and was informed by people engaged in the growing of sheep
and the people of the United States shall be compelled to pay and wool that the price w as less than 14 cents. I do not think
a high price for wool in order that that end may be accom it was one-third of that in 1S97, though in 1894 and 1895 it got
plished. That is the argument reduced to a n u tsh ell; and it down pretty low.
Mr. CARTER. There are certain clips of wool of inferior
applies in greater or less degree to the proposition of the pro
tective system as to other industries—to tax the people of the kind that alw ays sell some cents below the regular market
country at large to sustain private enterprises and increase price.
'—
7 Mr. OWEN. Now, Mr. President, coming back to my ques
their profits.
Mr. ALDRICH. I was anxious to ascertain whether this, tion to the Senator from Rhode Island, he advised us that the
proposition of the Senator from Oklahoma w as presented after labor cost of m aterials in the United States ran from 80 to 90
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
1909.
3041
was 2.6 cents a pound, which is shown in Table 430 of Carroll D.
W right’s report on labor cost; there is a cost of 2.6 cents a
I\o. wo.— Woolen ya rn : U nited S ta te s ; 1897-98; u n it, 1 poun d; No. 1 pound. If the value of the yarn w as 26 cents, 10 per cent ad
valorem would precisely equal that cost. There is a specific
yarn.
answer to the Senator from Rhode Island, m athematically.
Mr. ALDRICH. W ill the Senator make that statem ent over
Per cent
of total. again? My attention w as diverted for a moment. I shall be
glad to hear w hat he said.
Mr. OWEN. I w ill restate it with great pleasure. Carroll D.
°! laljor ?n transforming' materials................
W right’s table, No. 430, shows that the total labor cost in a
eost of materials and all other items except labor.
pound of No. 1 yarn is 2.6 cents a pound. If the wool entering
Total cost__.,___
our ports w as valued at 26 cents per pound, 10 per cent ad
valorem would meet the labor cost in the United States, grant
That does not correspond w ith the view of the Senator fror
ing that the labor cost in England was nothing ; and 10 per
mode Island as to 80 per cent being the labor cost, and I slioul
cent is somewhat lower than 145 per cent, fixed in this bill as
the tariff rate by the Senator from Rhode Island.
\er to bave him explain it,
I)er cent. I call his attention to Carroll D. W right’s Table
No. 430, on woolen y a r n s:
epeat
been fam iliar w ith tariff discussions, he would have been aware
of the fact that this question of labor cost has alw ays been in
jected and occupied a great deal of space in such discussions.
I w ant to say to him now that the labor cost at any single
stage in th is long process of manufacture has nothing w hatever
to do w ith duties, and can not be made to have. For example, take a jackknife. Jackknives are made abroad largely by
farming out the different operations to people engaged in one
particular process. For instance, one party might be grinding
The blade, and it might cost a cent on that jackknife in one
country and h alf a cent in another. That has nothing to do
ivith the duties on jackknives. We are not dealing w ith a
single part of or one process in this long series of operations
iny more than w e are in yarns. It costs to pack yarns into
>oxes, for instance, a fraction of 1 per cent. Are you going
o regulate the duty upon the cost of packing l Certainly not.
t costs something to run the wool through the different pro1esses, from one to another. Are you going to take one of those
ud talk about the labor cost involved?
The whole scheme is ridiculous. It does not get anywhere
..ractically. W hat we want to compare is the total cost of pro
duction in one country and the other and equalize conditions on
S the p r o S .
ms entei'lne luto 1110
<* <“•• ^
■ the total cost o f production; and that total cost of production,
v-^ STkIr.
in the last analysis, as I have stated, and I w ill repeat it, is
. „ALDRICH. I heard the Senator a few moments m
based upon the cost of labor. If labor costs 50 per cent more
th in
tbat l f tbe “ st of tb0 forelsn l « w l» « 'V»° in this country than it does in another country, or double w hat
Mr OWEN. Excuse m e ; the Senator did not apprehend w h a T H t costs in another country, that relative cost of production in
-he two countries is governed entirely by the scale of w ages all
sanl. I said if the labor cost were nothing.
the production and all through every part of the life
vMr. ALDRICH. Well, I understood the Senator to sav if the through
*
of the Nation. If you pay in Washington .S3 a day for a police
C0^ ° I the foreign product w as nothing.
man and they pay $1 in London, that difference of $2, or $1, or
OWEN. 1 said the labor cost.
whatever it is, appears in additional taxes. It appears in the
:
for
myAp m -p o S ' ^
pr0P° Siti0n ls J'ust as
another scale of living. It appears in the ultimate cost of production for
every article; and the Senator w ill get back, I think, in the
foiMrt h e ° ^ ; >*f oue ProP°sitlon is ju st as good as anoth^T lend to the proposition which I made the other day, that the
io i the Senator s purposes, he can state any proposition he
ultim ate cost of production of every article is 90 per cent lab or;
1 leases, but he m ust not make me responsible for it.
and if we live on a higher scale here, paying higher w ages, we
0
Mr. ALDRICH. I f the Senator w ill w ait patiently I
certainly, in the comparative cost of production, have to take all
glY® him a concrete illustration.
the wage scales of the United States into consideration. That
Mr. OWEN. I have great patience, and w ill wait.
------v
is my answer to the Senator.
P ^ I ' r i S KICH' If tl10 labor cost is nothing abroad and 10
Mr. OWEN. I have a certain intellectual sympathy w ith J
cents in this country, w hat rate would have to be put upon the
foreign value to equalize that condition? That is a mathe the Senator from Rhode Island in his effort to defend the in -y
matical problem which I should like to have the Senator work lefensible.
effort involved in
> ii„iii—i■>. Mr. ALDRICH. There is no intellectual
in
ly aa plai
plain statem ent of facts. 1 do
/
Mr. OWEN. That is a m athematical problem which is very P at all. It is just simply
intellectual effort either to make the.
i easily ascertained and worked out.
iJiot think it requires any intellectu
Mr A.LDRICH. W hat percentage would the Senator "put statem ent or to understand it.
Mr. OWEN.- The cost of production involves primarily as its
upon thee labor cost to equalize
equ
conditions?
....
/ Mr. OWEN. It is jierfectly easy to determine the value of ,.iief factor, upon which the most part of all the debate has
turned
and the main discussion has occurred, the cost or moor
/ h e labor cost in the United States; it is perfectly easy to dend difference in the cost of production. I therefore, in the
/term ine the ad valorem which shall equal th at cost.
ttempt to bring this matter to a clear comprehension of the
V - Mi'. ALDRICH. In case it cost nothing abroad, what would
r elative cost of production, take the primary factor of the rela
m ite in figures?
. s * Ir. OWEN. That is a question broadly stated, applying to tive cost of labor, which can be presented plainly, i h e Senator
/fo u r or five thousand items, which the Senator well knows is Tom Rhode Island naturally and ingeniously obscures the issue
\ impossible of m athematical answer, and therefore he asks some- >y going into broad generalities and talking about the question
\ v l m t triumphantly a question which no man can answers It >f labor generally and the difficulty of determining the factors
reminds me, I w as going to say, of an ancient adage-----“'"•w n manufacturing the thousands of involved item s which enter
nto the general schedules, and he thereby sk illfully obscures
Mr. ALDRICH. I will give a concrete illustration. Suppose
that an article cost nothing abroad and 10 cents here, what .lie issue, so as to make it incomprehensible to the ordinary
percentage of duty would the Senator put upon the foreign Investigator. B ut when I call his attention to the fact that
"arroll I). W right’s table shows that in woolen yarn No. 1 the
article to equalize conditions in the United States?
rcentage of labor cost is almost a trifle less than 6 per cent
/ .Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, take the question of yarn, for ex
f the value of the product, he explains it by a genen
t ample. Supposing that the total labor cost in the United States
W O L
V J-
L * C.1 J
U iU lC l 1U I
<U1U
V/JL t
p iu u u v i/
to
, , 0m
to 00 per cent labor, I care not w hat it is—I mean in
ae last analysis. In making that computation, you have to
commence, of course, w ith the ore in the ground, w ith the ele
mental unit o f production, whatever it may be. Everything
neyond that is cost of labor. That is the proposition that I
uake; and I think the Senator w ill have great difficulty in ar
riving at any other conclusion if he investigates the subject
carefully, as i am gure jie w ill.
, Mr. ^ ^ E N . Mr. President, the answer of the Senator from
it node. Island that every product is substantially composed of
moor is true in a broad sort o f fashion. That everything used
by man is the result of his labor is generally true, but it has
no bearing upon and no relation to the question of the labor
cost in yarns. According to this table, the labor cost in yarns
is o per cent, and the Senator from Rhode Island stands here
and demands 143 per cent tax upon yarn on the ground of its
abor cost. Granted that 100 per cent of the cost of varn was
abor g r a t e d that capital has no interest in it whatever, still
Ha? i pef. cent above 100 Der cent is an excess even on the
i alien Ions theory of the Senator from Rhode Island. But it is
not true, as a matter of fact, that yarn has over 5 to 10 per
cent o f labor cost as compared w ith the cost of the material
(
X L IV
191.
3042
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
J une 10,
waves it lightly aside and imputes to me a lack of understand day, and will read that in the R ecord to-morrow, he m ust agree
ing as explaining wliy I ask the question.
w ith me as to the accuracy of the statement I have made.
Mr. ALDRICH. I w ill try this illustration. I will try to / M r , OWEN. I did read the matter in the H ecord. t ex
make an application of the rule I have stated to the very thing a m in ed it w ith critical care, and I find it utterly unfounded
he has under consideration. He says it costs 2 cents a pound— 'a n d utterly worthless. I mean to be respectful about it. But
labor cost— in making yarn. The cost of yarns in this country j I am giving the honest judgment of my mind upon that state
ment----~
made
Rhode iwiunu.
Island.
depends
largely upon
the---cost~ vof
in JttlHD,
yarns, and if wool!a --------------v*. wool
vv
111
~~ by the Senator from **^^v*x^
•*costs 22 cents in Montana, and 11 cents for the same character ^ Mr. ALDRICH. Do I understand that the Senator b
in Australia, the American manufacturer pays 11 cents a pound scheme o f his upon a misconstruction of the statement which
more for his wool from which that yarn is made, to start with, Lm ade?
and the same differences between the ultimate foreign and the f Mr. OWEN. Is the Senator alluding to the excellent amend
domestic cost of production runs through every item. So you ment which I have offered?
may be perfectly certain that you must, in your ultimate cost N^Mr. ALDRICH. Yes; I was alluding to that, and I hope To
of production, consider the conditions o f labor in both countries, test the Senate at an early hour as to their views and judgment
both being in competition. The scale of wages in both countries upon the amendment.
\
determines the difference in the cost of production.
——
Mr. OWEN. I base that amendment upon the theory of the
Mr. OWEN. The difference in the cost of wages in this coun-j 'Senator from Rhode Island and upon the Republican pledges 1
f try is conceded to be 2.G cents a pound for No. 1 wool, and noth of a tariff based on cost of production, and upon the Democratic
V ing more.
view of a tariff for revenue, and not upon any conclusions of
;
my own. Assuming the correctness of the declarations made
Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, not for No. 1 wool.
U"- Mr. OWEN. No. 1 yarn. That is the Wright table, No. 430. by the Senator from Rhode Island that he is guided by the
Mr. ALDRICH. He is talking about transforming material! difference in the cost of production, my amendment could not \
possibly do harm. It m ight serve a useful purpose in bringing
from one stage to another and nothing else.
into effect the pledges made by the Republican party in 1904
Mr. OM EN. Granting every possible concession that th
and
1908, that the tariff should be written in the light of the
Senator from Rhode Island can insist upon within the bound:
of reason, when the labor cost of transforming wool into No. 1 difference in the cost of production at home and abroad, always
assuming that the tariff ought not to go below a revenue-proJ
wool yarn is between 5 and G per cent, there is no possibility
ducing point, which is the Democratic view, because that
which a rate of 145 per cent can be justified.
f ^gsgntial to the maintenance of our Government.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. P resident___
Mr. ALDRICH. Does not the Senator see, w hile he is discuss
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from -Okla
ing in one breath the differences in the cost of production, that
homa yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
he is discussing, mainly the difference in the labor cost at a
Mr. OWEN. I yield w ith pleasure.
Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator is reading, I believe, from a single stage o f the process?
Mr. OWEN. I have discussed the labor cost from these tables, \
document issued in 1898 or thereabouts.
Mr. OWEN. Eighteen hundred and' ninety-eight to ninety- taking the elementary eost of labor in wool yarns, taking the \
labor
cost with the y am as the crudest form of manufactured
!/r fin e .
Mr. GALLINGER. I f the Senator w ill turn to this docu material in the woolen schedule, and I call the attention of the
ment, just printed, which w as quoted by the Senator from W is Senator, first, that there is only 5 and 6 per cent of cost of labor
consin [Mr. L a F o l l e t t e ] last evening’ w ith such approbation, in the yarn, and then in blankets the labor cost is only 15 and J
prepared by W. A. Graham Clark, special agent of the Depart 20 per cent.
Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator must be willing to admit, I
ment of Commerce and Labor, he w ill find, on page 5, that Mr.
think, that there is nothing whatever about the labor cost in
Clark says:
the Chicago platform, and he is discussing a rule which no
I n g e n e ra l i t m a y be s a id t h a t th e c o s t o f m a n u fa c tu re o f w o rste d s
party has ever laid down, which no political economist has ever
in E n g la n d is a b o u t h a l f t h a t in th e U n ite d S ta te s .
laid down, and which no party that had any idea or knowledge
The Senator says it is 5 or G per cent. B ut here is Mr. Clark’s of tariff legislation has ever laid down. H e is discussing some
statement that it costs tw ice as much in this country as in thing entirely immaterial and entirely outside of any of the
igland.
- -v questions to which I have alluded.
Mr. OWEN. The Senator is making a comparison of the cost
Mr. OWEN. I have sought in vain to obtain from some \
in England and in the United States of worsted goods, where
aember of the Finance Committee, somewhere, the difference in 1
they obtain their wool at about half the price of what obtains
he cost of production at home and abroad. The Senate of the
here. I am talking about the labor cost in No. 1 wool yarn,
United States has not been furnished w ith that information.
as given in the Wright table, which has not yet been set aside The Senate w ill not be furnished with it. The Inquiry is reas unsound. I am not talking about the cost of yarns or of garded as unreasonable and unsound, not in accordance with 1
wool in Montana and Australia, as the Senator from Rhode party promises, not in accordance w ith the desire of the people 1
Island well knows, and I am not talking about the cost of man of the United States.
ufactures of worsteds as the Senator from New Hampshire.
I desire to emphasize th is because I believe the people of the
They ingeniously and w ith intellectual cleverness confuse tfif United States do not feel w illing to give greater advantages
issue of 145 per cent tariff on yarn being excessive.
to our manufacturing classes than w ill put them upon an equal
Mr. GALLINGER. We pay more for our wool.
\
ity and a parity w ith manufacturers abroad; that it is not the
Mr. OWEN. I agree that the difference in the price of woo \1 intention
i
of the American people to allow monopoly to be shel
/m u st be provided for in determining the difference in the cosi ]\ttered under th is ta r iff; that it ought not to be done, and there
of production, but when I call your attention to the labor cosi fore I call attention to the Republican party pledges, and I call
in No. 1 yarn and when I call your attention to it as one of the attention to the fact that the Committee on Finance has given
important parts of the cost of production, in order that we may us no data to show the difference between the cost of produc
determine the difference in the cost of production at home and tion at home and abroad, and when it is repeatedly called for
abroad, I can not help but call the attention of the country to and when it is emphasized we have mere glittering generalities,
the vital fact that the Committee on Finance has furnished us subtle evasions, and the vague mal apropos that everything
with no record whatever of the labor cost of these articles nor iwhich is made consists altogether of labor, that there is noth
of the cost of production, and has left it impossible for anybody ing in it but labor, and therefore we must deal w ith these questo determine the difference in the cost of production at home; tions as altogether the product of labor, and that nothing enters "
and abroad. It can not be done w ith the data given to the Into it except labor.
~~1
Senate for that purpose, and I hold the party in power and the | Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----s Finance Committee directly responsible for this fatal am ^ fle- j(Alr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.
\[ib e r a te omission.
^ Mr. GALLINGER. I f the Senator w ill again turn to this
Mr. ALDRICH. I have tried, w ith considerable patience, to recent publication of Mr. W. A. Graham Clark, he will find that,
explain this matter for the reason that these claim s as to the treating of an all-wool sateen, of botany wool, on page SS, he
labor cost of production appear and reappear in tariff discus concludes his observations by saying:
sions; and I want to state the fact that the labor cost of pro
T h is sh o w s th e A m e ric a n e o s t o f m a n u f a c tu r e p e r y a r d to he 127' p er
duction at a single stage in a long process of manufacturing has c e n t h ig h e r t h a n th e E n g lis h .
no value whatever in determining either the relative cost of pro
And he gives a concrete sample, and yet the Senator says it
duction or the proper rate of duty which must be assessed to is 5 or (G per cent.
O
equalize the cost of production. I f the Senator, w ith his ana / Mr. OWEN.
I call attention, in reply to the Senator from
)in\
Hampshire, to the fact that again he side steps and dis
lytical mind, w ill follow the advice which I gave him the other fsew Ha
is- ) i
J
1009.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
3043
V
cusses “ all-wool sateen ” and does not consider the point I 7 Mr. OWEN. I am glad the Senator has discovered that there J
make—that the estimated cost in Belgium of woolen yarn W is a No. 1 yarn. He denied its existence but a few moments a
3 cents a pound, which is higher than the American cost.
Mr. SMOOT. I say again it is not used in this country. I
Mr. GALLINGER. I am quoting from a recent publication, know w hat No. 1 yarn means. No. 1 yarn means that a pound
which has been quoted w ith great approbation on the other of wool is drawn out 640 yards, and the Senator must know,
side of the Chamber.
\ if he knows anything of the wool business or the manufacturing
/Mr. OWEN. I have not seen the recent publication. But / f it, that that would be a very, very coarse wool thread inf sateen ” has nothing to do w ith my point on the labor cost lleed, alm ost a roving, and it is not used in the manufacture
of No. l yarn, which has more labor cost in Belgium than in h t goods. As I have said, the finest wool y a m that is used in
the coarsest kinds of blankets is about an 8, and it runs from
the United States.
' Mr. CARTER. To begin with, it is perfectly safe to say that that up to 60. Take the difference between the manufacture
the difference in labor cost in producing the wool out of which of an 8 yarn and a No. 60 yarn. The whole argument of the
the cotton yarn is made exceeds 100 per cent in this country, Senator, based upon No. 1 yarn, is wrong in theory. It does
as against the markets in which Germany and England draw not work in practice and it does not fit any goods m anufact ured
their wool supply. How that 100 per cent of excess is reduced
. in.Ailn„. „ hlnill.n, , .
j
to o -l or 6G per
per cent
cent in
in the
the computation
oomnutation of
of the
the Senator
Senator is
is aa mys-f
m vsMr.
S <■
• s l o to 20 v
_ OWEN. The labor cost of l
tary unless it be true that, according to the suggestion made* im rcent
ay the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Oklahoma,
Mr* ^MOOl. Allow me to tell the Senator that no doubt on
in his computation, disregards the various elements that enter the eheapest-grade blanket that is made, the very cheapest, it
mto the matter of cost and selects only one of the many inci would be 15 per cent, but I can tell the Senator that I have
dents of labor from the beginning to the close of the finished made blankets by the hundreds of thousands where the labor
isfc of making a blanket w as 40 per cent.
3mrn.
'
Mr. OWEN. That may account for things which have h a p -J
/ ? Mr. OWEN. I call the attention of the Senator from Monened
In the Senator’s woolen business.
f
/ tana to the fact that I have shown the exact number of cents
Mr. SMOOT. It w ill happen to anybody who knows any
I that the material in these articles costs, as well as the exact
thing about the manufacture of goods.
\ number of cents o f labor cost
Mr. OWEN. It is very interesting to know at least from j
v Mr. CARTER In producing yarn, it is first necessary to
some authority w hat the labor cost is in the making of blan- /
raise wool. Following the raising of the wool, it is necessary
sIipot- it r,......
”
------” [\kets. So it is 40 per cent?
t fiom the sheep.
‘- v . \ Mr. SMOOT. On some grades it is.
Mr. OWEN. That is a very remarkable circumstance, a n d ; ;Nfv OWEN Fortv ner°cent under the highest-priced con- 2 r f S i y r * w iih «•
\ a i“™
A
i m *.
Jir. CARTER. They sometimes pull it off. Then this item
Mr SMOOT It is about the same as in other sections of
i,n r a; ing’/ « r instance> costs froin a cent an(1 a half per head the- country, I think.
— i ■-->
1 to 4 and m some instances 5 cents in Australia. In the
Mr. OWEN. The labor cost increases as you go west, in all
F aRed rr,tates the cost of shearing is from 10 to 14 cents per lin es’ Everybody knows* that to be true, and I suppose the [
matter of
scouring,
is Senator has ovei-looked the fact that it is true.
s c o u r ,.,Then
1JieL comes
Co°!?1C8 the
th« matt*r
?f so
u rin g , and
and after
after the
the wool
wool is
1 it
has
through the
tli process into roving; then into
'v . _
aR to go
so tlirough
Mr. SMOOT. No, I have n o t overlooked i t ; I know what all
another form ; finally into yarn.
the m ills are paying in this country, and I know w hat w e pay.
The Senator proposes to take the mere cost of transforming The labor cost in the m ills in Utah is about the same as in the
he lovm gs into yarn and say that that is the total difference East. Perhaps there may be some little difference on the low
in the cost of producing the yarn in the United States and the est grade of labor, as an advantage to Utah, but the great bulk
cost abroad, when he starts out w ith more than 100 m ” cent of Ja.bor is about the same there as in the East.
—•*
difference m the cost o f producing the wool to start
> Mr. OWEN. 4 w ill ask the Senator from Utah whether he
y ^ M i OWEN. As far as this particular item is concerned t agrees w ith the Senator from Rhode Island that the labor cost
( fr o m y oCain att®ntion to tlie kibor cost in making No 1 varn iii between 80 and 90 per cent, notwithstanding his experience
40 per cent?
«
^ Mr
bomiy
force! ' tb° W°, 011)6 CUt ° ff or lu,Iletl out <* the sheep. of
«hoot „
TTFrSMOOT. I am not going to discuss a question which w as
^MOOT. Mr. President-----N discussed when I w as not here, and without knowing upon
• * '
. , ’ * yk’kl with pleasure to the Senator from Utah \ what basis it was made, but I .indge from wliat the Senator
i in the midst of my explanation.
u jsays here that if he did make the statement that there w as 80
\ Mr. SMOOT. Does the Senator base his argument noon W
per cent labor cost, it w as the amount of labor from the raw
i yarn as numbered or as to tlie quality of the wool? *
*
product to the finished product, or in other words^ to jake a
and then I w ill agree
- « BN‘ 1 base my argument on No. 1 yarn from table concrete
'‘‘.ncrete case,
case, from
from iron
iron ore
ore to
to the
the needle,
ne
M ~
' d that it is 80 per c e n U ^ ~ —.
430 of Carroll D. W right’s report, and the' yarn described F vith tlle Senator from Rllode
Tsland
then I call the attention of
'therein.
*'ulu a‘ scrioeav V A Ir . OWEN. I f that were true, tl
he Senator to the fact that this tariff would be cumulative
tmd would be several thousand per cent before you get to t h e y
finished product.
C—Mr. SMOOT. It is bound to be, from the very fact in the
case I cited. Take the ore, which is worth only .$2.50 a ton.
yards, and there is no such num beras"that”used In the'iuam ? It must be more than a thousand per cent between the ore
the manufacture of the finest needles.
racture of goods. No. 8 is about the first we use, and those are
[r. OWEN. I am glad to hear the S enator im prove upon the J
used only in blankets. Every number Increases in fineness
m ate o f 80 or 90 per cent o f the Senator from Rhjxlfi. LsltUld—
and it costs that much more to make the yarn.
figures which the Senator is reading here mean No^°l *varn° . ITT SMOOT. I w ill ask the S enator, D oes he not believe
(
B
m
s a
r
x Ju s m
t s is
i treat it, step by step, its increasedr value
s is clue to numan jauoi
,.b„r ,.
«K
1— t
figuring
on
.. 7 .
A
...
„
__*__x.
but that
proposition
has no _point
in the rafATTACirimi
proposition lllRIOV
under
/
Mr OWEN. Carroll D. W right gives the precise cost o f'fo k S fs c u s s fo n ^ T is ^ ja general truth that all things made are the]
[ m aterials and other item s entering into the manufacture of No A h r o r i i i c t a o f l a b o r
do w ith the case where th
material here.
allowed to answer.
and so on down to No. 10 yarn. The use to which No. 1 y am is
Mr. SMOOT. Certainly.
put is utterly immaterial and irrelevant to the discussion, as thg
Mr. OWEN. When these yarns have to be brought in here as
Ssenator from Utah must know.
a product, finished up to a certain point, and then converted
Mr. SMOOT. I see from the statement there what the Sen into a blanket, the labor cost in handling that yarn m ust be
ator is driving at, and I want to call his attention to the fact considered as a new proposition, beginning w ith the yarn in
that he is talking about No. 1 yarn—a great, coarse thread, al question; and that percentage of labor in making a blanket is
most coarser than is used in any kind of goods in th is country.
hat Carroll D. W right’s report says is 15 to 20 per cent. Our
3044
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
blanket manufacturers can bring in the product for use in weav
ing blankets and use it as raw m aterial for tlie purpose of
making b lan k ets; and then the question is, H ow much of labor
cost is involved in making the blankets w ith that material
purchased and ready for blanket making in their hands?
Mr. SMOOT. The Senator’s argument places him even in a
worse position than he w as before, because for the coarsest
kind of blanket you can take the wool, after being scoured and
placed upon the cards, and get it at 15 per cent of the labor
cost—not the yarn, the Senator says—ready to put into the
loom. I do not think it would be 15 per cent from the yarn
itse lf manufactured to simply w eave it into a blanket. Cer
tainly the Senator has made h is case worse than ever.
f Mr. OWEN. It is perfectly patent to anyone who considers
f th is matter at all that the manufacturer who is protected in
blankets by 165 per cent, and who gets his material, the
ready to go into the blanket, is only entitled to the proteetioif
, covering the difference in the cost of labor.
' Mr. SMOOT. The Senator evidently does not understand
the processes of m anufacturing woolen goods. I f I could only
take him into a woolen m ill and show him the steps, I know
the Senator could see it. I t is a pretty hard thing, it seems to
me, to show him by words in a w ay that the Senator can under
stand.
—^
f Mr. OWEN. I understand perfectly well the question of the>
'cost of production involving the m aterial and the labor. I have
been through woolen m ills and seen every step. I have been
discussing the labor cost alone. The question of the material
is provided for by the tariff duty upon wool and the various
forms of wool. B ut in addition to that there is also the further
Max provided for blankets and for every variety of woolen mq~"
facture.
Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, the Senator does not mean to
say that one hundred and odd more percentage outside of the
duty is upon the wool and the manufacture of yarn?
/ Mr. OWEN. I do not. I am calling attention to the ele1 ments which enter into this manufacture, and I have called at
tention to it because I think that these schedules ought to be
written in the light of the difference in the cost of production
at home and abroad. That is not being done, and I submitted
the proposed amendment merely to call the attention of the
Senate to this matter. H aving done so, I now withdraw th e/
amendment.
'*—
The PRESIDIN G OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma
withdraw s the amendment. Paragraph 375 is agreed to. The
Secretary w ill state the next amendment passed over.
The S ecretary. In paragraph 376, page 131, line 26, after
the words “ ad valorem,” the committee proposes to insert the
following proviso:
Provided, T hat on all the foregoing, weighing over 4 ounces per
square yard, the duty shall he the same as Imposed by this schedule on
cloths.
J une 10,
all. They are described in the paragraph as cloths that are com
posed wholly of cotton or other vegetable fiber, so far as the
warp is concerned. The remainder of the fabric may be com
posed in whole or in part of wool. So in these cloths there is no
pretense made that they are woolen cloths except that they may
have the w eft of wool, though it is not necessary even for them
to have all the w eft of wool. I am told by expert weavers that
when the warp is entirely cotton it is technically impossible to
have the w eft entirely of wool.
Mr. President, in 1897 Governor Dingley, chairman of the
W ays and Means Committee, had by his side a very w ise coun
selor, especially upon the woolen schedule, and I hold in my
hand the letter o f the chairman of the W ays and Means Com
m ittee of the House, dated January 26, 1897, in his own hand
writing, introducing Colonel Tichenor, confidential adviser of
the committee, to two gentlemen—the president and the sec
retary of the American Woolen M anufacturers’ Association. I
also hold in my hand Colonel Tichenor’s letter to Governor Dingley, found among his papers, dated Washington, D. C., June
26, 1897, in which he calls attention to the fact that various
changes have been made by the Senate committee in its bill
on wools of classes 1 and 2, and reciting what he regarded as
proper paragraphs covering yarns, cloths, blankets, and women’s
dress goods.
I have had such confidence in his knowledge in the mechanism
o f th is tariff schedule, and I have had so many evidences of
his dissatisfaction w ith the excesses and extravagances that
have crept into the assessm ents o f these rates, that I have taken
he liberty to cut out of this yellow manuscript containing his
'notes upon the tariff law of 1897 this one, being in the form
of a letter to Governor Dingley—paragraph 376 as Colonel.
Tichenor thought it ought to have been w ritten in the Dingley
tariff Jaw.
Mr. ALDRICH. H as the Senator put that letter in the
R ecord?
Mr. DOLLIVER. I have it not at hand here. I have a great
m ass of papers that I have not brought forward so a s to avoid
controversies of one sort and another which I do not desire to
have arise a t this stage of our proceedings.
The PR ESID EN T pro tempore. The question is on agreeing
to the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. DOLLIVER. On th at I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded
to call the roll.
Mr. JONES (when his name w as called). I am paired with
the junior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. S m it h ]. I trans
fer that pair to my colleague [Mr. P iles ], and I vote “ nay.”
The roll call having been concluded, the result w as an
nounced—yeas 30, nays 41, as fo llo w s:
Bacon
Bankhead
Beveridge
Bristow
Brown
Burkett
Chamberlain
Clapp
YEAS— 30.
H ughes
Johnston, Ala.
La Follette
McLaurin
Martin
Money
Nelson
N e w la n d s,
NAYS— 41.
Guggenheim
Crawford
Heyburn
Cullom
Johnson, N. Dak.
Curtis
.Tones
Depew
Kean
Dick
Lodge
Dillingham
McCumber
Dixon
Nixon
du Font
Oliver
F lin t
Page
Gallinger
Penrose
Gamble
NOT VOTING— 20.
Elkins
P iles
Richardson
Frazier
Shively
Frye
Simmons
Hale
r Sm ith, Md.
McEnery
Clay
Culberson
Cummins
Davis
Dolliver
Fletcher
Foster
Gore
Overman
Owen
Paynter
Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, I desire to call the attention
Rayner
of the Senate to the fact that the proviso carries these goods—
Taliaferro
it makes no difference w h at they are made of—if they weigh
Taylor
more than 4 ounces to the yard, back into the paragraph assess
ing duties upon woolen cloth, where they w ill encounter 44 cents
a pound, owing to the compensation of the manufacturer and
Perkins
the cloth duty ad valorem. The H ouse omitted it in view of Aldrich
Root
the fact that these goods confessedly are not made of wool. I Bradley
Scott
Brandegee
do not think that th e amendment ought to be adopted.
Sm ith, Mich,
Briggs
Smoot
Mr. ALDRICH. The provision w as dropped out by mistake. Bulkeley
Stephenson
It is in the present law and certainly it ought to be restored. Burnham
Sutherland
Burrows
It is the Dingley law and should be voted in.
Warner
Burton
The PR ESID EN T pro tempore. The question is on agreeing Carter
Clark, Wyo.
to the amendment of the committee, which has been read.
Crane
The amendment w as agreed to.
Mr. DOLLIVER. Before the paragraph is agreed to, I desire
Smith, S. C.
to offer the amendment which I send to the desk.
B ailey
Stone
The PRESID EN T pro tempore. The amendment w ill be Borah
Tillm an
Bourne
read.
Warren
Clarke, Ark.
Wetmore
The S ecretary. In lieu o f paragraph 376 it is proposed to Daniel
in se r t:
So Mr. D olliver’s amendment w as rejected.
The PRESID EN T pro tempore. The paragraph is agreed to
376. Women's and children’s dress goods, coat linings, Italian cloths,
and goods of sim ilar character or description, o f which the warp con as amended. The next paragraph w ill be read.
sists wholly o f cotton or other vegetable fiber, and the remainder of the
The Secretary read paragraph 377, as follow s:
fabric composed wholly or in part of wool, valued a t not more than 20
cents per square yard, 11 cents per square yard and 25 per cent ad
valorem ; valued a t more than 20 cents per square yard, 11 cents per
square yard and 35 per cent ad v a lo rem : Provided, T hat on all the
foregoing w eighing over 4 ounces per square yard the duty shall be the
same as is imposed by th is schedule on cloths.
Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, I offer that amendment
because it appears to me to be a more rational classification of
these various kinds of cloths, which are not woolen cloths at
377. On women’s and children’s dress goods, coat linings, Italian
cloths, bunting, and goods of sim ilar description or character com
posed wholly or in part of wool, and not specially provided for in this
section, the duty shall be 11 cents per square yard; and in addition
thereto on all the foregoing valued a t not above 70 cents per pound, 50
per cent ad valorem ; valued above 70 cents per pound, 55 per cent
ad valorem : P rovided, T hat on all the foregoing w eighing over 4
ounces per square yard the duty shall be the same as imposed by this
schedule on cloths.
pride of opinion w ith respect to my own amendment. I have
felt at perfect liberty to confer w ith my friend, the Senator
from Texas [Mr. B ailey ], in order that we might compare the
Air. CUA1MINS. Those are the only amendments which I
propose to the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas.
W ithout debating the subject "at all at this time, I lea we it,
amendment offered by him with the amendment offered by me. saying that, w ith these amendments, I am wholly satisfied w ith
I have been exceedingly anxious to reach some plan by which the measure as presented by him.
there need be but a single vote upon the subject of the income
Air. BAILEY. Now, Air. President, I w ish-----tax. There were but slight differences—no essential differ
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Alay the Chair interrupt the Sen
ences—between his plan.and the one found in the amendment ator to request that the Secretary report the amendment moved
which I last offered.
by the Senator from Iowa to the amendment of the Senator
I say candidly and frankly that I have conferred w ith the from Texas? It has not yet been reported.
Air. BAILEY. I thought the Secretary did report the amend
Senator from Texas, w ith a view to framing this measure so
that the very best elements in his amendment m ight be com ment when the Senator from Iowa offered it.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Iow a stated the
bined w ith the best elements in mine, and therefore command
the utmost strength that the proposition to levy an income tax substance of it, but it has not been reported from the desk.
bas in this body.
Air. ALDRICH. That is not necessary.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair does not suppose that
I therefore move an amendment to the amendment offered by
the Senator from T exas to strike out, in line 7, page 1, the is necessary.
Air. BAILEY. I ask that the amendment be printed in the
word “ th r e e ” and to substitute therefor the word “ two.”
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, if it would be convenient to R ecord w ith o u t taking time to read it.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. That order will be made, in the
the Senator from Iowa, I would suggest that this amendment
be offered and printed. I am desirous, if possible, if w e are to Absence of objection.
have a postponement of this proposition for a week, that we
The modification proposed by Air. Cu m m in s to the amend
should go on as rapidly as possible w ith the pending schedule. I ment of Air. B ailey was to strike out from the amendment,
Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I agree, I think, fully with' beginning in line 23, on page 3, down to and including line 14,
the Senator from Rhode Island. I do not intend to argue these on page 6, and in lieu thereof to in sert:
matters. I had hoped that after the amendment shall be per
S ec. — . That there shall be assessed, levied, and collected for the
year 1909, and for each calendar year thereafter, a duty of i.
fected, as I believe it w ill be in a very few minutes, we might calendar
per cent on the net gains, profits, and income over and above $o,00(.)
then have it printed, so that, before it is finally considered, it of all corporations, companies, or associations organized for pecuniary
may be seen as a whole and connectedly.
profit under the laws of the United States or under the law s of any
or Territory or doing business for pecuniary profit m the United
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill state the amend State
States, no matter where or how created or organized, but not including
ment proposed by the Senator from Iowa.
copartnerships. The aforesaid net gains, prohts, or income of any
The S ecretary. On page 1, line 7, before the words “ per such corporation, company, or association shall include its entire gam s,
centum,” it is proposed to strike out “ three ” and to insert
two.”
Mr. CUMMINS. I also offer-----and establish such system of bookkeeping and reports a a m a y he uecesMr. BAILEY. I suggest to the Senator from Iowa that we sarv to insure uniformity in this respect. P rovided, h ow eier, th a t
nothing herein contained shall apply to corporations, companies, or as
agree to that amendment as we go along.
sociations organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious, or
Mr. CUMMINS. Precisely.
educational mirnoses including fraternal beneficiary societies, orders,
Mr. ALDRICH. I think that the Senator from T exas I Mr or associations operating upon the lodge system and providing for the
S
« f i t l i d other benefits to the members or
B a iley ] and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Cu m m in s ] ought to sue “ societies,lfieorders,
or associations and dependents of such members ;
be permitted to modify and perfect their propositions without nor to the stocks, shares, funds, or securities held by any fiduciary or
the approval of the Senate, because they have a right to do trustee for charitable, religious, or educational pu rp oses; nor to build
th a t-.-, moral r lg lit-lr a t I should not Ilk? to ha™
~
ing anil loan associations or companies which ®ake
5*“ ly *?„tlWlr
the Senate to concur.
expect:
BAILEY. Tbe Senator from Iowa and the “ Senator I S T o ? a p itt" .¥ « sr|ep o 0. i t l !
n crrrr*p<ru f p *1 m o u n t
il l HI1V OUG Y G fll, 0 1 IT101G I-D ilU
J f l OIU t i l G
«w
LeX>aS are ( <’in^ m the Presence of the open Senate same* depositor; thirdly, shall not allow ah
‘V . ^ot^l °,?
what we have agreed-----a ie ’ deposits, by any one depositor, exceeding $10,000, 'P?®
fom th ly, shall
Mr. ALDRICH. W hat you have already done-----actually divide and distribute to its depositors, ratably to deposits, all
ir n ln ^ over the necessary and proper expenses of such bank, mMr. BAILEY. Is a right and proper adjustm ent of anv d if hP Ption,
oSr so ciety ^ ex cep f suc^ as shall1 be applieci to su rp lu s; fifthly
ferences. If the Senator from Rhode Island wants the matter stitu
shall not possess, in any form, a surplus fund exce^dm^ 10 per cent
:
t!£"“ ssa! s w . rSkMdeis s'£&*s :“ “P?
I)rMr<
v r n m r w 11 IT
° T®1
’ it’no
1 objection
it: fair
do I ™
thisnoway.
All. ALDRICH.
have
to to
that;
have
ob
jection to any modification that the high contracting parties
maj agree to; but I do not m yself desire to be made a nartv to
this controversy.
1 *
ml1- BAILEY. We shall try to accomplish that later.
..
‘p ^ ICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair then understands that
Senator from Texas modifies his amendment.
Ml CUMMINS. I offer the amendment, and I think the
senator from T exas accepts it.
Mr. BAILEY. I accept the amendment of the Senator from
lowa.
1 he_ VICE-PRESIDENT. Then it becomes a part of the
amendment offered by the Senator from Texas.
Mr. CUMMINS. I also move to strike out from and includ
ing line 23, on page 3, to, but not including line 15, on page 6,
and to substitute therefor that which I send to the Secretary’s
d e sk ; which I say to the Senate is a substitute of the provision
in my amendment respecting corporations for the provision in
ine amendment offered by the Senator from Texas. As origi
nally offered, tlipy differ only in th is: That I provided for the
reimbursement to stockholders of corporations, taxed under
uAp. ‘;uv, whose total incomes from all sources are less than
*po,00f), of the amount which, as stockholders, they contributed
to the tax paid by the corporation, the intent being to relieve
an persons whose incomes were not more than £5,000 from the
operation of this tax. I call that also to the attention o f the
Senator from Texas.
Mr. BAILEY. That amendment, Air. President, is entirely
understood between the Senator from Iowa and myself, and I
accept it.
The VICE-PRESIDENT.
The
Senator from T exas
[Mr.
B ailey ] accepts the modification of the amendment in accord
ance w ith the suggestion of the Senator from Iowa [Air.
C u m m i n s ].
XLIV------197
of its aggregate deposits; nor to such savings banks, saving in stitu
tions, or societies composed of members who do not, participate in the
ducted on the m utual plan solely for the benefit of its depositors oi\
such plan, and which shall keep its accounts ot its business conducted
on such m utual plan separate and apart from its other accounts ; not
to any insurance company or association which conducts all its business solely upon the m utual plan and only for the heneht ot its policy
holders or members, and having no capital stock and no stock or share
holders, and holding all its property in tru st and in reserve for its
policy holders or members; nor to th a t part of the business 01C any
insurance company having a capital stock and stock and share nomeis.
which is conducted on the m utual plan, separate from its stock pian
insurance, and solely for the benefit of the policy holders and me o
insured on said m utual plan, and holding all the property be s g
to and derived from said m utual p art of its business in tin st <
serve for the benefit of its policy holders and members WfjV®
........
m utual p lan ; nor to any p a rt of the business o l a n y i n : A n « to
pany having a capital stock and s to ck and stockholders e „p can itil
those gains and profits and income legally distributables to
pmu_
stock and among such stock and stockholders. All Sta .
nicipal, and town taxes paid by con^ratlons, compa . - .
tions shall he included in the operating and business - 1
corporations, companies, or associations.
enmnnnv r,,.
Provided fu rth er, Any stockholder ot any
I?
association the income of which is taxable andI taxed unde, the Provi
sions hereof, whose total income from Ml sources ‘3°®s not render him
liable to the duty herein provided for, may, at any tim e w ithin six
months after the corporation or association of
...
ls a stock
holder has paid the duty herein required, file a w ritten application
w ith the collector of the district m which he
form as
the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, show JnS th at his total
income for the year under consideration, computed as hereinbefore
set forth, did not exceed $5,000. Such application shall be under
oath and accompanied by such other proot as the rules and
regulations may require. If the application and proof are satisfactory
to the collector, and are approved by the Secretary of the Treasury,
and it further appears th at the gains or profits of any share or shares
of capital stock owned by any such stockholder in any such corpora
tion have been included in the income upon which the corpora
tion has paid a duty, then the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to
the applicant the proportionate part which his share or shares con
tributed to such duty, the inten t being to exem pt any person whosn
total income, computed as herein provided, is not more than 5 000
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
3138
from the payment, directly or indirectly, o f an income duty, and the
Secretary of the Treasury is expressly authorized to establish such
rules and regulations, and to provide such forms, as w ill enable such
persons to present their claim s and receive their reimbursement w ith
least difficulty and delay consistent w ith th e due adm inistration of the
law .
J une 11,
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request
of the Senator from California to withdraw his vote? The
Chair hears none.
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, that, as I understand, is a vote
which has been passed and announced.
Mr. FLINT. I t is.
Air. BACON. I do not think, Air President, that it is in
accord w ith the practice of the Senate to withdraw a vote under
such circumstances. The simple statem ent made by the Sen
ator w ill accomplish the same purpose. I t is not competent to
change the record as it has been made.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. I t can only be done by unanimous
consent. Therefore, the Chair-----Air. BEVERIDGE. The only thing that can be done is to
correct the record.
Air. BACON. I would suggest to the Senator that the an
nouncement made by him that his vote w as caused by a m is
apprehension, and that it did not change the result would ac
complish the purpose w hich he has in view.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. Yes.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks the Senator can
withdraw his vote by unanimous consent.
Air. BACON. Undoubtedly. I sim ply stated, Mr. President,
that the request of the Senator from California w as not in ac
cord w ith our custom.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair so understood the Sen
ator.
Air. ALDRICH. I ask that the remaining paragraphs of
Schedule K be agreed to.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. W ithout objection, the remaining
paragraphs of Schedule K are agreed to.
Air. CU5IMINS. Air. President, I now present the motion
upon which I delivered some remarks th is morning, which I
ask may be stated.
/ The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill state the motion.
V The Secretary read as fo llo w s:
Mr. ALDRICH. I think the Senator from T exas has a right
to modify his own amendment to make it agree w ith th is joint
production of the Senator from Iow a and" the Senator from
T gx&s ,
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The Senator from Rhode Island is
right.
Mr. BAILEY. Now, in order that the Senator from Rhode
Islan d m ay have the benefit of “ the joint production,” to which
h e refers, I ask that the pending amendment as modified by
these amendments shall be printed in bill form.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. W ithout objection, that request is
agreed to.
( Mr. ALDRICH. I now move that the further consideration
o f this amendment be postponed until the 18tli day o f June.
Mr. BAILEY. On that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded
to call the roll.
Mr. DA V IS (when the name of Mr. Clarke of Arkansas w as
called ). 'My colleague [Mr. Clarke of Arkansas] is paired w ith
the junior Senator from D elaw are [Mr. R ichardson ]. I f my
colleague were present, he would vote “ nay.”
Air. CRAWFORD (when Air. G amble ' s name w as called).
Aly colleague [Air. Gam ble ] is paired w ith the junior Senator
from Indiana [Air. S h iv e ly ], I f m y colleague were present, he
w ould vote “ yea.”
Air. AlcLAURIN (w hen h is name w as called ). I again an
nounce my pair w ith the junior Senator from Alichigan [Air.
S m it h ], I f he w ere present, I should vote “ nay,” and he would
vote “ yea.”
Air. TILLAIAN (w hen the name of Air. S m it h of South Caro
lina w as called ). Aly colleague [Mr. S m it h of South Carolina]
is absent on account of illness in h is fam ily. I f present, my col
Air. Cummins moves to recomm it Schedule K to the Finance Comleague would vote “ nay.”
‘ m ittee, w ith instructions to again consider the same and report a
schedule as follow s, to w i t :
The roll call w as concluded.
1. W ith the duties on wool unchanged.
Air. PILES. Aly colleague [Air. J ones ] is absent for a few
2. W ith so-called “ compensatory duties ” to the woolen manufac
minutes. I f he -were present, he would vote “ nay.”
turers th at w ill measure the difference between the price which do
m estic manufacturers pay for wool and the price paid by their chief
The result w as announced— yeas 45, nays 34, as fo llo w s:
foreign competitors.
3. A further duty upon imported woolen manufactures th a t w ill rep
YEAS—45.
Aldrich
Beveridge
Bradley
Brandegee
Brown
Bulkeley
Burkett
Burnham
Burrows
Burton
Carter
Clark, Wyo.
Crane
Crawford
Cullom
Curtis
Depew
Dick
D illingham
D ixon
D olliver
du Pont
E lkins
F lin t
Perkins
Frye
Root
Gallinger
Scott
Guggenheim
Smoot
Hey burn
.Tohnson, N. Dak. Stephenson
Sutherland
Kean
Warner
Lodge
Warren
N elson
W etmore
N ixon
Oliver
P age
Penrose
NAYS— 34.
Culberson
Rayner
La F ollette
Cummins
McEnery
Simmons
D avis
Martin
Sm ith, Md.
F letcher
Money
Stone
F oster
N ewlands
Taliaferro
Frazier
Overman
Taylor
Gore
Owen
Tillm an
H ughes
l'ayn ter
P iles
Johnston, Ala.
NOT VOTING— 12.
Gamble
AlcCumber
Shively
H ale
McLaurin
Smith, Mich.
Jones
Richardson
Smith, S. C.
resent the difference between the cost of production a t home and
abroad, w ith a fair m anufacturers’ profit added, less the compensatory
duties already given to dom estic manufacturers because of the higher
price they are compelled to pay for wool.
Air. CUAIAIINS. Mr. President, I do not intend to repeat
anything I said this morning, and I said then everything 1 de
sired to say respecting this motion. I believe it embodies the
Republican view of a protective tariff upon these duties and
puts upon the Finance Committee a specific instruction, under
which, as good Republicans, they ought now to act, by virtue of
our platform. Upon the motion, if there is to be no further
Bacon
discussion, I ask for the yeas and nays.
B ailey
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Bankhead
Air. McLAURIN. Air. President, I merely w ish to put in the
Borah
Bourne
R ecord, before the vote is taken, some statistics, furnished me
B ristow
by a statistician in whom I have confidence, showing that, ac
Chamberlain
cording to the statistics of the Departm ent of Agriculture, there
Clapp
Clay
were in this country in 1884, 50,360,243 sheep.
Air. ALDRICH. Air. President, w ill it inconvenience the
Senator from Alississippi to allow a vote to be taken on this
B riggs
Clarke, Ark.
proposition?
D aniel
Air. McLAURIN. I w ill only take h alf a minute. In 1SS4
So the motion of Air. A ldrich to postpone w as agreed to.
the number of sheep in th is country was, a s I have stated,
Air. BROWN. Air. President, I offer the amendment which I 50,360,243; in 1890 the number of sheep w as 44,336,072; in
send to the desk.
1903 the number w as 63,964,876; and in 1908 it w as 54,631,000.
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The amendment w ill be stated.
I merely make th is statem ent so that it may appear in the
Air. BROWN. I ask to have the amendment printed w ithout R ecord, for the purpose of showing th at in years when the
reading, and that it lie on the table.
W ilson tariff law w as not in force there ivas a great falling off
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. W ithout objection, that order w ill in the sheep in th is country.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The pending question is on the
be made.
Air. BROWN. I desire to say, however, that the amendment motion of the Senator from Iow a [Mr. C u m m in s ] to recommit
proposes a joint resolution for an amendment o f the Constitu to the Committee on Finance Schedule K, w ith instructions, on
tion, which shall give Congress the undoubted power to levy a which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
Air. TILLMAN. W ith w hat sort of instructions?
ta x on incomes. I give notice further th a t as soon as "the
The AHCE-PRESIDENT. The instructions have been read.
amendment offered by the Senator from T exas [Air. B a iley ]
is disposed of, whenever that may be, I shall call up the The Secretary w ill again read them, if there be no objection.
Air. TILLAIAN. There is a difference of opinion in regard to
amendment I now present.
Air. FLINT. Air. President, on the vote which w as taken the matter, and I should like to hear them again read.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill again read.
on the amendments of the Senator from W isconsin [Mr. L a
The Secretary again read the motion of Mr. Cu m m in s .
F ollette], I inadvertently voted w ithout noticing th at my pair,
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill call the roll.
the senior Senator from T exas [Air. Culberson ], w as ab sen t I
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.
therefore desire to w ithdraw m y vote.
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. CURTIS (when his name was called). I desire to an
nounce my pair with the senior Senator from Maryland [Mr.
R ayner],
Mr. FLETCHER (when his name w as called). I am paired
with the junior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. B riggs], and
therefore withhold my vote.
Mr. McLAURIN (when his name w as called). I again an
nounce my pair w ith the junior Senator from Michigan [Mr.
S m ith ] . i f he were present, I should vote “ nay.”
The roll call w as concluded.
Mr. BURROWS. My colleague [Mr. S mith of Michigan] is
unavoidably absent. H e is paired w ith the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. McLaurin ]. I am at liberty to say, however,
m .
c°lleague were present, he would vote “ nay.”
i\r i • McLAURIN. Upon the statement of the Senator from
u-i'ti
tkat tlle j ullior Senator from Michigan [Mr. S m ith ],
j. i 1 whom I am paired, would vote “ n a y ” if present, I will
vr-1 t? liberty of voting. I vote “ nay.”
Tt ‘ }• BEAN. My colleague i Mr. B riggs] is necessarily absent,
e is paired with the Senator from Florida [Mr. F letchee],
my colleague were present, he would vote “ nay.”
.
CULBERSON. I am requested to announce that the
emor Senator from Maryland [Mr. R ayner ] is paired on th is
1 lestion with the Senator from K ansas [Mr. Curtis ]. I f the
° n r m m Maryland wen* present, he would vote “ nay.”
fi'fim'r CRTIS. In view of the announcement of the Senator
Ian i1 r\rCaSI M r' C ulbebson ] as to how the Senator from Maryn r o L i t R ayner ], w ith whom I am paired, would vote if
1 Mr t a
take <he liberty of voting. I vote “ nay.”
vnL
COLLETTE. I desire to say that I w ithheld my
Son-Hm. n.SG I Tam ° PI’0Red to a Portion of the motion of the
could A i r
T?wti and in favor of a Portion of it, and so
u neither vote for it or against it.
ne result w as announced—yeas S, nays 59, as fo llo w s:
Beveridge
Bristow
Aldrich
Bacon
B ankhead
Bourne
Bradley
Brandegeo
Bulkelcy
Burnham
Burrows
Burton
Carter
Chamberlain
Clark, Wyo.
Clay
Crane
Bailey
Borah
Briggs
Clarke, Ark.
Daniel
Fletcher
YEAS— 8.
Clapp
Cummins
NAYS— 50.
Crawford
Gore
Culberson
Guggenheim
Cullom
Heyburn
Curtis
•Tohnson, N. Dak.
Davis
Kean
Depew
Lodge
Dick
McEnery
Dillingham
McLaurin
Dixon
Martin
du I’ont
Money
Elkins
Nixoii
F lint
Oliver
Foster
Overman
Frye
wen
Gallinger
Brown
Burkett
NOT VOTING— 24.
F railer
La Follette
Gamble
McC umber
Hale
Newlands
11ughes
Perkins
Johnston, Ala.
Kavner
Jones
Itichardson
Dolliver
Nelson
Paynter
Penrose
Piles
Root
Scott
Simmons
Smoot
Stephenson
Stone
Sutherland
Taliaferro
Tillman
Warren
W e tm o re
Shively
Sm ith, Md.
Smith, Mich.
Sm ith. S. C.
Taylor
Warner
T L ^ v i n P D n .u , Mr- Cum m ins w as rejected,
The hour of 5.30 o’clock bavin
U’ the Senate stands in recess until 8 o'clock this evening
arrived Hi X ^ k SID E N T .
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Utah asks unani
mous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration
of the free list. Is there objection?
Mr. BEVERIDGE. Wait a minute. Pardon me a minute.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. In one moment; the Chair w ill
recognize the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. CLAPP. I suggest the want of a quorum.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Minnesota sug
gests the absence of a quorum. The Secretary w ill call the roll.
The Secretary called the roll, and the follow ing Senators an
swered to their names:
Aldrich
Bacon
Bailey
Beveridge
Borah
Brandegee
Bristow
Brown
Bulkeiey
Burkett
Burnham
Burrows
Burton
Carter
Chamberlain
Clapp
THE TARIFF.
s i.h ! ^ if enat-e’ as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con
dut A 10,1 ,of the bill (H . R. 1438) to provide revenue, equalizi
fo r oil aud ^ c o u r a g e the industries of the United States, am
M . f 1’ purPoses.
thr.
S\ r°5 )T- t'Osk unanimous consent that w e now take ui
M r IM lst for consideration.
Gver-l _ OWN. I should like to inquire why we should pas;
Thi* A rJd{^ItSON. We on this side are unable to hear,
louder”* i '-'®‘TRESIDENT. Will the Senator please speak a bit
O vo?»BRO" N . t want to Inquire why it is necessary to pass
a the schedule relating to pulp and print paper?
i{ f. BEVERIDGE. For how long?
ti f s m OOT. The committee thought it was proper to pass
that over, at least for a day or two, In the absence of the Sena
tor from Maine [Mr. H a l e ] , who i s not well enough to be
here, and I would not like to have it taken up iu his absence.
Mr. BROWN. Of course under those circumstances I would
hot Insist ou taking up the schedule.
Clark, Wyo.
Clarke, Ark.
Crane
Crawford
Culberson
Cullom
Cummins
Curtis
Davis
Dick
Dixon
D olliver
du Pont
Fletcher
F lint
Foster
Frye
Gallinger
Gore
Heyburn
Johnston, Ala.
Kean
La Follette
Lodge
McCumber
McEnery
Martin
Money
Nelson
Oliver
Overman
Page
Penrose
Perkins
P iles
Root
Scott
Simmons
Sm ith, Md.
Smoot
Stephenson
Stone
Sutherland
Taliaferro
Tillm an
Warren
Wetmore
Mr. PILES. My colleague [Mr. J o n e s ] is necessarily
tained from the Chamber to-night.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Sixty-tliree Senators have an
swered to the roll call. A quorum of the Senate is prssent. Is
there objection to the request of the Senator from Utah?
Mr. BROWN. Of course, on the statement of the Senator
from Utah, I would not insist on an objection, but 1 call the
attention of the Senator from Rhode Island to the fact that
this bill lias been before the Senate now for neaxlj ten weeks.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the Senator
from T exas rise?
.
. , . ,,
. .
Mr. CULBERSON. I rise to inquire what is the request of
the Senator from Utah?
„
.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. That the Senate now proceed to
the consideration of the free-list provisions of the bill.
Mr BROWN This bill has been pending m the Senate now
for alm ost ten weeks. It came here with no report and no
recommendation with respect to Schedule M, the schedule relat
ing to pulp, paper, and books; and I should li 'e to inquire if it
is not about tiiqe that the Senate had some light as to when a
report is likely to be made. The Senate, I believe—and I
know I, myself—would be enlightened considerably if it were
known what the report is likely to be.
Mr. ALDRICH. The committee reported on all the para
graphs of Schedule M except the clause i elating to printing
paper. As I stated to the Senate the other day, the report of
the committee is likely to he a rate which is less than the
present law and in excess of the House rate.
Mr. BROWN. That is a wide margin, Mr. President. Can
we have any indication about where-----Mr. ALDRICH. It is not so very wide. The House provides
for a duty of .$2 a ton on print paper, and the present law is
A3 of a cent a pound, or $6 a ton. The Senator can exercise his
m r o n n ifi'
EVENING SESSION.
The Senate reassembled at 8 o’clock p. m,
3139
lv ith in
tlin c /Y
lim ifc j
can as to w hat the rate w ill be.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. W hat the rate recommended by the com
m ittee w ill be.
Mr. BROWN. I w as going to say it would take great in
genuity on the part of any man to divine what the committee
w ill report. I w ant to say that the hesitation and doubt ot the
committee on this subject give hope to men that the increase
may not he so high on this schedule as on some of the others.
Mr. ALDRICH. There is sure to be a reduction. A hot her
the reduction w ill reach the rather radical ideas o my friend,
the Senator from Nebraska, I am not so sine. I h a ie been
trying in all these provisions, so far as I could, to make the
reductions conform to his views.
'
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request
of the Senator from Utah?
Mr. BEVERIDGE. The Senator from Rhode Island w as ad
dressing the Chair a t that particular moment.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection? The Chair
hears no objection.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. W hat is the request?
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Indiana w as not
understood by the Chair.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. I was listening to the remarks o f the
Senator from Rhode Island, and in the m idst o f them the Chair
suggested the order.
3140
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENA TE
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. Tlie Chair did not intend to pre
sent the request until the Senator from Rhode Island had taken
his seat.
Mr. BEVERIDG E. H e w as still on his feet. B u t that is a
sm all matter. W hat is the request?
The VICE-PRESIDENT. T h e Chair regrets that he affronted
the Senator from Rhode Island. H e did not do so intentionally,
and the Senator from Rhode Island had not complained. Is
there objection to the request o f the Senator from Utah?
Mr. BEVERIDG E. Now, w hat is that request?
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair w ill again repeat the
request—that the Seuate now consider the free-list portion
of the bill. I s there objection? The Chair hears none. The
Secretary-----Mr. LODGE. Beginning w ith th e free list, line 17, page 193,
has been agreed to by th e Senate, and I ask leave to add—-it is
an oversight in the bill— in line 17, after the words “ Philippine
Islands,” the words “ and the islands of Guam and T utuila.”
The V IC E-PR ESID EN T. The Secretary w ill report the
amendment proposed by the Senator from M assachusetts.
Mr. SCOTT. T hat is a committee amendment?
Mr. LODGE. Y e s ; a committee amendment.
The V IC E-PR ESID EN T. It is a committee amendment.
The S ecretary. In line 17, page 193, after the words “ P h il
ippine Islands,” insert the words “ and the islands of Guam and
T utuila.”
The V IC E-PRESIDEN T. The Senator from Rhode Island
asks unanim ous consent that the amendment be agreed to. Is
there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The Secretary w ill report the first paragraph passed over.
The S ecretary . The first paragraph passed over is 472.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I desire to say a word concern
ing my vote on the la st roll call before the recess w as taken,
and I refer to the motion of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. C u m
m in s ] to recommit the woolen schedule, w ith instructions to
the Finance Committee to report the same back in accordance
w ith the Republican platform, covering the difference between
w ages here and abroad plus a reasonable profit to the manu
facturer. T hat motion w as made during my absence from the
Chamber, and I returned after the roll call had been concluded
and upon the eve of the announcement of the result of the
vote being made by the Secretary. I did not at that tim e fully
appreciate the issu e which had been raised by that motion, and
I do not w ish my vote against the motion to be understood as
com m itting me in any measure to the pending bill or as com
m itting me to any of its sections, schedules, principles, or pro
visions. Indeed, it w as impossible for me to register my view s
by my vote upon that question.
I regard the pending .m easure as being ju st about as bad as
human ingenuity can make it. I regard it as a great deal worse
than the present D ingley law. I w ill vote w ith pleasure for any
motion which m ight have any possible tendency either to de
feat th is measure or to improve it in the interest of the Ameri
can people and th e American consumer. The motion of the
Senator from Iowa, however, w as to instruct the com mittee to
report th is m easure back in accordance w ith the Republican
platform and in accordance w ith the principle of protection.
Mr. President, I do not believe in the principle of protection.
I do not believe that the Am erican consumer should be taxed
to enrich the American producer. I believe that American peo
ple and American labor in an open contest w ith the rest o f the
world can w in the race. I believe th at low taxation is a bless
ing and that high taxation is a curse, whether that taxation
be either direct or indirect. I t is apparent, therefore, that I
could not either by an affirmative or a negative vote register
m y view’s w ith fidelity and precision upon that motion. I f I
had been present, I should have asked to be excused from
voting.
The V IC E-PR ESID EN T. The Secretary w ill report th e first
paragraph passed over.
Mr. STONE. I t is paragraph 472.
The S ecretary . The first paragraph passed over is No. 472.
Mr. STONE. I desire to offer an amendment to the para
graph.
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The Senator w ill present his
amendment, and the Secretary w ill state it;
The S e c r e t a r y . Amend paragraph 4 7 2 b y inserting, after
the word “ carbolic,” i n lin e 18, the word “ chlorosulphonic.”
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, there is a large m anufacturing
chemical company in St. Louis, known as the “ Monsanto Chem
ical Works.” It is a very large and very responsible chemical
concern. The president of th at company w as here, and, I think,
conferred w ith some members of the Finance Committee about
one or two m atters, a t least. I am sorry to say that he is a
very pronounced Republican.
J une 11,
I w ill read to the Senate, and particularly to the Senators
who are in charge of th is bill, a brief statem ent which he made
to me, w ith reference to, this matter. H e s a id :
I n e x p l a n a t i o n : C h lo r o s u lp h o n ic a c id is p ro d u c e d b y in je c tin g h y d r o
c h lo r ic ( m u r i a ti c ) a c id in to f u m in g s u lp h u r ic a c id , w h ic h r e s u lt s in a
c h e m ic a l r e a c tio n in th e f o r m a tio n o f a n ew c h e m ic a l c o m p o u n d w h ic h
is it s e lf a n a c id .
U se d la r g e ly in G e rm a n y in c h e m ic a l m a n u f a c tu r i n g f o r th e s u lp h o n a tio n o f o r g a n ic c h e m ic a l c o m p o u n d s.
N o n e m a n u f a c tu r e d in t h i s c o u n tr y a n d n o n e p ro b a b le . W e a p
p ro a c h e d e v e ry a c id m a n u f a c tu r e r in th e U n ite d S t a t e s to p ro d u c e i t
f o r u s, b u t th e y r e f u s e d to u n d e r t a k e i t b e c a u s e o f lim ite d d e m a n d
a n d h e a v y c o s t f o r in s t a l l a t i o n f o r i t s m a n u f a c tu r e .
W e im p o r te d 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 to 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 p o u n d s a y e a r f o r tw o y e a rs , p a y in g
th e a s s e s s e d r a t e o f 2 5 p e r c e n t a s a “ c h e m ic a l c o m p o u n d ,” b u t w e re
f o rc e d to d is c o n tin u e a y e a r ago.
N o n e im p o r te d n o w a n d n o n e lik e ly so lo n g a s It is o n th e d u tia b le
li s t . W e w ill u s e a b o u t 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 p o u n d s a n n u a lly i f p la c e d o n th e
f r e e li s t .
Monsanto Chemical Works,
St. Louis.
According to th is statem ent, in which I have absolute cre
dence, none o f this article is m anufactured here and none is
likely to be.
Mr. SMOOT. Mr. P resident-----The VICE-PRESIDEN T. Does the Senator from M issouri
yield to the Senator from Utah?
Mr. STONE. I do.
Mr. SMOOT. I remember that the gentleman called a t my
office, and we discussed the question. I think I have an exact
copy of the statem ent the Senator has ju st read.
Mr. CUMMINS. I suggest if this is a matter to be submitted
to the Senate, w e would like to hear w hat is going on.
Mr. SMOOT. I say I think I have an exact copy o f the state
m ent which w as ju st read by the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. STONE. I have no doubt of it.
Mr. SMOOT. I have not the copy w ith me, and I forget
w hether the gentlem an stated w hat they are using to-day in
place of th is particular chemical.
Mr. STONE. H e does not state w h at they are using in place
of it. I asked him th at question, and he told me there w as
nothing they could use in place of it, and they had to discontinue
the m anufacture of the article iu w hich th is acid w as employed.
Mr. DU PONT. I should like to ask the Senator from Mis
souri for w hat purpose th is acid is used?
Mr. STONE. H e says in th is statem ent it is used for “ the
sulphonation of organic chem ical compounds.” The point I
make is that as it is an acid used in a considerable degree in
manufacture, as none is made here, and none can be made
here, it ought to go on the free list.
Mr. ALDRICH. I have no objection to its going on the free
list, and before it is reached in conference the committee w ill
make a careful exam ination of it.
Mr. STONE. I am entirely satisfied w ith that course.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri.
The amendment w a s agreed to.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The paragraph a s amended, w ith
out objection, is agreed to. The Secretary w ill report the next
paragraph passed over.
The S ecretary . On page 194, line 6, the committee proposes
to strike out paragraph 480, in the follow ing w o r d s:
4 S 0 . A m m o n ia , s u lp h a t e o f.
Mr. ALDRICH. Several Senators who are interested in this
particular amendment are not present to-night, and I think I
w ill have to ask that it may go over.
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. Is there objection to the request
of the Senator from Rhode Island? The Chair hears none.
The Secretary w ill report the n ext paragraph passed over.
The S ecretary . On page 194, line 8, in p a ra g ra p h 482, after
the word “ imported,” the committee proposes to strike out the
words “ by a .citizen of the United States.”
Mr. ALDRICH. The second amendment, in lin es 10 and 11,
striking out the words “ whether intended to be so used by the
importer him self or for sale for such purpose,” the committee
are satisfied would be a m istake. They therefore w ithdraw the
second amendment.
Mr. BURKETT. I suggest to the Senator that, in my opinion,
th is privilege has alw ays been given to citizens o f the United
States.
Mr. ALDRICH. I have no objection to w ithdraw ing them
both.
Mr. LODGE. That is not th e w ay it is in the old law.
Mr. BURKETT. I have three or four copies of acts where it
stands as it would w ith the clause out.
Mr. LODGE. The existin g law has no lim itation to citizens
I of the U nited States.
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
Mr. ALDRICH. This paragraph contains provisions regard
ing crude and refined petroleum. I understand that amend
ments w ill be offered to that paragraph, and I ask that it be
Passed over.
Mr. KEAN. I suggest that another amendment be made be
fore the paragraph is passed over, by inserting “ nut oil or oil
° i nuts,” which by amendment are made dutiable at S cents a
gallon in paragraph 35J. „
ti ! ' ICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair desires to inquire of
,.le Senator from Rhode Island whether he desires a vote upon
. e amendment which he offered in line 10 before the paragraph
is passed over?
Mr. ALDRICH. Y es; I ask that the Senate agree to the
amendment striking out “ orange oil.”
ie v ICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment,
i,
amendment was agreed to.
t - ,e., ' ICE-PRESIDENT. Now, the Senator asks that the ene paragraph be passed over.
I.. 1' ALDRICH. Before that is done, I move to insert in
une j the words “ nut oil or oil of nuts.”
1
BURTON. After the words “ enfleurage grease.” which
, tbe ep.d of line 9, the words “ nut oil or oil of n u ts ”
snould be inserted.
gested ALb>IiI<~’U. That is the amendment I have just sug9 i f e.
1 ICE-PRESIDENT. The amendment w ill be stated.
ACBETAm
After the word “ grease,” a t the end of line
and a
o ncomma.
pr0posed t0 insert the words “ nut oil or oil of nuts ”
ana
rp}le amendment was agreed to.
rm -rn-!-.!*'^ -B E SID E N T . In the absence o f objection, the
Paiagnvph win be now passed over.
the
1 i i nut,
1^1P (|is it Tbat
me ('1
i lnnese
not? is tbe oil of Cm alurites cordata, or
„f,r' ALDRICH. The Chinese nut.
parain’anh^win1
ID E ^iT‘over>
In 1Le absence of objection, the
Daiagiapn
w ill i^
|K.^passe(i
Mppi rMr^Mniv^vi^d 1 w il l say tbat the Senator from MissisJ (lesires to move to put on the free list oleo
steal in. He has been called aw ay from the Senate tun iA n
account of sickness; but whatever nviv i,D
* e to night on
rights in the matter, I w7sh to do
y
Ue t0 preserve bis
Mr:
S
s s ^ r orreVerstooi-
' - 116" paragraph to t e l ^ m a s ^ r a g r ^ h e L j T o t a !
done A L D llU IL
^ ot y e t : but I am w illing that that shall be
rENJ ROSE.
I offer that amendment.
ask f o T i t f S u o n 1*6 ^
I unlerst-imi ir
by the 8euator fr™ Ohio,* and I
h as *u rondv'V >KK 1!ENT‘ Tlie Seuator from Rhode Island
actld
ly 1:lesp'lted1 an amendment which has not vet been
be laid S o 1U ith*t absenc<: of objection, that amendment will
Pei sv it i S U1 m the amendment proposed by the Senator from
•imo?m,! !
w lthont objection, be now considered. The
amendment will be stated.
,
Paragraph 037. page 212, line 13. after the
"ora palm, it is proposed to insert the words •• palm kernel.”
r no amendment w as agreed to.
ALDRICH. I have another amendment to that para
graph, w hile we are upon it. I move to strike out. in line 12,
atter the word “ use,” the words “ and valued a t not more than
00 cents per gallon.”
,{be VICE-PRESIDENT. The amendment w ill be stated,
it
. CBETABY- ln line 12, page 212, after the word “ use,”
timf byoposed to strike out the words “ and valued at not more
tnan 60 cents per gallon.”
ih e amendment w as agreed to.
<,, * 1: ALDRICH. I ask that the amendment inserting oleo
steann be agreed to.
wir
J ^ A N . I have another amendment to paragraph 637.
t !cb I w as going to ask the Senator if lie would accept. It is
insert the words “ soya-bean oil.”
c* I 1' ALDRICH. I presume I w ill have to take tlie Senator's
statement that it is all right.
Mr. BEVERIDGE. I should like the Senator from New
' ’p'y to explain w hat that oil is.
Mr. KEAN, it is oil used in the making of soap.
Air. BEVERIDGE. I know; but what is the oil?
V
XLIV-
-198
3153
Mr. KEAN. I t is soya-bean oil, which is used in the making
of soap.
Mr. STONE. Is soap on the free list?
Mr. KEAN. N o; it is not; but this is one of the m aterials of
which soap is made.
Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, I desire to understand w hat
new article is suggested for the free list.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill state the amend
ment.
The S ecretary. After the words “ nut oil, or oil of nuts,”
insert “ soya-bean oil,” at the end of line 9, page 212.
Mr. DOLLIVER. I was going to suggest to the Senator from
New Jersey that, w hile I have been fam iliar w ith that subject
for a long time, I never heard of oil being produced from beans.
[Laughter.]
Mr. KEAN. I think if the Senator would exam ine the bean
fam ily he would know that there is a great deal of oil in beans.
Mr. PILES. Should not the words “ soya bean ” be used in
place of “ soya-bean oil ? ”
Mr. KEAN. That is what I desire.
Mr. PILES. I move to amend so that it w ill read “ soya
bean.”
Mr. SMOOT. The amendment comes in under the heading
of “ Oils,” and a ll that it is necessary to say is “ soya bean.”
Mr. KEAN. That is all.
Mr. DOLLIVER. That simplifies it. [Laughter.]
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill again state the
amendment.
The Secretary. After the amendment inserted at the end
of line 9, it is proposed to insert the words “ soya bean.”
The amendment w as agreed to.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. President, I call the attention o f the
Senator from Rhode Island to the amendment which he has
proposed and which has not been adopted.
Mr. ALDRICH. T h e amendment to insert oleo stearin? ”
Mr. CULBERSON. Yes.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The amendment will be stated.
The S ecretary. On page 212 it is proposed to add as a new
paragraph the follow ing:
C37J. Oleo stearin.
The amendment w as agreed to.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The next paragraph passed over
w ill be stated.
The S ecretary. Paragraph 038, orange and lemon peel, not
| preserved, candied, or dried.
The paragraph w as agreed to.
Mr. ALDRICH. I ask to reconsider paragraph 041 for the
purpose of offering the amendment which I send to the desk.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. In the absence of objection, the
vote by which the paragraph w as agreed to is reconsidered.
The amendment w ill be stated.
The S ecretary. In paragraph 641, on page 213, line 1, after
the word “ bagging,” insert “ and all other w aste.”
The amendment w as agreed to.
The S ecretary. Also in line 2, after thfe word “ bags,” strike
i out “ fit only to be converted into,” and insert in lieu thereof
“ used chiefly for.”
The amendment w as agreed to.
The S ecretary. And also after the word “ paper,” at the
end of the paragraph, insert the word “ making.”
The amendment w as agreed to.
Mr. FLETCHER. If the words which are proposed to be
stricken out, as the amendment has been reported by the Sec
retary, were to be replaced by the words mentioned by him, the
paragraph would not make sense.
Mr. ALDRICH. Is the Senator speaking of paragraph 041?
Mr. FLETCHER. Yes; paragraph 041. I think the amend
ment does not read properly.
.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the Sec
retary w ill read the paragraph as amended.
The Secretary read as fo llo w s:
641. Paper stock, crude, of every description incHiding all grasses,
fibers, rags (other than w ool), waste, including jute w aste shavings,
clippings, old paper, rope ends, w a s t e rope, and waste ha»„in_,, and all
other w aste, including old gunny cloth and old gunnj bags, fit only to
lie converted into paper making.
Mr. BURTON. I do not think that is quite correct. It
should read “ used chiefly for paper making.” The words “ fit
only to be converted into ” should be stricken out, and in place
of those words should be inserted the words “ used chiefly for.”
Mr. ALDRICH. That is correct, “ used chiefly for paper
making.”
The VICE-PRESIDENT. That is the way the amendment
reads as it has been agreed to.
3154
CONGRESSIONAL K ECOltD— SENATE.
J une 12,
Mr. DOLLIVER. Tlie Senator from Georgia w as speaking
The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators
some tim e ago of the discrim ination in the free return of bags answered to their nam es:
that had been used in the conveyance of w heat in our exports Aldrich
Clay
Gallinger
Page
Crane
Guggenheim
o f w heat as against the free im portation o f cotton bagging. I Bacon
Paynter
Beveridge
Crawford
Ileyburn
Penrose
call his attention to the fact that th e cotton bagging seems to Borah
Culberson
Hughes
Piles
return to the United States free, ju st as other- bagging does, Bradley
Cullom
Johnson, N. Dak. Root
Cummins
Kean
except that it happens to come back a s paper stock and w aste Brandegee
Scott
Curtis
La Follette
Smoot
o f jute fit for paper stock, and commonly used as such. So that Briggs
Brown
Davis
Lodge
Stephenson
any additional legislation is unnecessary, as they are practically Bulkelcy
Dillingham
McCumber
Stone
Burkett
Dolliver
McLaurin
on the same basis now.
Sutherland
du I'ont
Martin
Taliaferro
The 5 IC E-PR ESID ENT. The question is on agreeing to the Burnham
Fletcher
Burrows
Money
Tillman
paragraph as amended.
Burton
Flint
Nelson
Warner
Foster
Oliver
Carter
The paragraph as amended w as agreed to.
Overman
Chamberlain
Frazier
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The Secretary w ill state the next Clapp
Frye
Owen
paragraph passed over.
Mr. PILES. My colleague [Mr. J o n e s ] is unavoidably de
The S ec r etak y . Paragraph 651, plumbago.
Mr. H EYBURN. I should like t o inquire if the language o f tained for a short tim e th is morning.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I desire to state that my colleague [Mr.
paragraph 641 as to paper stock would not include wool?
G a m b l e ] w ill necessarily be absent during the day. H e is
Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, no.
Mr. H EYBURN. W ell, it reads “ paper stock, crude, of every paired w ith the Senator from Indiana [Mr. S h i v e l y ],
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. Sixty-one Senators have answered
description.”
to the roll call. A quorum o f the Senate is present. The in
Mr. ALDRICH. Oh, n o ; it does not include that.
Mr. FLINT. “ Paper stock * * * other than wool ” is the troduction of bills and joint resolutions is n ext in order.
language used.
BILLS INTRODUCED.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to
B ills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous
paragraph 651.
consent, the second time, and referred as follow s:
The paragraph w as agreed to.
/ B y Mr. O W E N :
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The next paragraph passed over / A bill (S . 2602) for the relief of w idow s and orphans of
will be stated.
m arshals or special officers killed in the service of the United
The S ec r e t a r y . Paragraph 652, potash, crude, or “ black States w h ile in the perform ance of their d u ty ; to the Committee
salts.” In line 7, after the word “ crude,” the committee pro on Claims.
pose to insert “ or refined.”
A bill (S. 2603) to authorize the P resident to appoint Brig.
Mr. KEAN. I hope th at amendment w ill not be agreed to. Gen. Frank D. Baldw in to the grade o f major-general in the
It puts refined saltpeter on the free list.
United States Army and place him on the retired list
Mr. ALDRICH. Very w e ll; I w ithdraw th e amendment.
Committee on M ilitary Affairs.
The V IC E-PR ESID EN T. The amendment is w ithdraw n. In
THE TARIFF.
the absence of objection, the paragraph is agreed to.
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The morning business is closed,
Mr. CLARK of W yoming. I desire to ask that th is para
graph be passed over. I have an amendment that I think I and the first bill on the calendar w ill be proceeded with.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con
shall w ant to propose to it, but I do not desire to do so at
sideration of the bill (H . It. 1438) to provide revenue, equalize
present.
Mr. KEAN. I have no objection to the paragraph being duties, and encourage the industries o f the United States, and
passed over if the w ords “ or refined” are withdrawn, and that for other purposes.
Mr. OVERMAN. Mr. President, I have voted to reduce the
has already been done.
The VICE-PR ESID EN T. Paragraph 652 w ill be passed over, duties provided for in every schedule in the bill where a vote
has been taken, as I sh all vote against the whole bill when it
w ith the com mittee am endm ent disagreed to.
Mr. ALDRICH. It is alm ost 11 o’clock, and I think w e comes up on its final passage. I shall vote against it because it
m ight as w ell conclude our labors. I therefore move that the is unjust and fu ll of inequalities; because it does not guarantee
equal and exact ju stice to the w hole people of this country, but
Senate adjourn.
The motion w as agreed t o ; and ( a t 10 o’clock and 58 m inutes it is, in my judgment, fram ed in the special interest of the privi
p. in.) the Senate adjourned un til to-morrow, Saturday, June leged few , w hile the great m ass of the consumers o f th is country
w ill continue to groan under its heavy burdens o f increased
12, 1909, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.
taxation. I believe it to be one of the m ost iniquitous tariff
bills ever passed by Congress, as pass it w ill.
According to tbe reports o f the last census, there were in the
SENA TE.
United States in 1900 (I speak in round numbers) more than
29,000,000 persons engaged in the five principal groups of occu
S a t u r d a y , Jun& 1 2 , 1 9 0 9 .
pation. Of these groups more than 10,000,000 people were en
gaged in the agricultural pursuits, 7,000,000 in manufacturing
The Senate m et at 10.30 o’clock a. m.
Prayer by Rev. U lysses G. B. Pierce, D. D., of the city of and m echanical pursuits, 5,000,000 in trade and transporta
tion, and the others were engaged in domestic, personal, and pro
W ashington.
The Journal o f yesterday’s proceedings w as read and approved. fessional services. Out of th is grand total of 29,000,000 per
sons engaged in business in this country, only the sm all number
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
of 243,000 were reported a s m anufacturers and officers, and so
Mr. SCOTT presented a memorial of sundry citizens of forth, and, I should say, only about 150,000 of these w ere manu
W heeling, W. Va., rem onstrating against an increase of the facturers.
duty on print paper and wood pulp, as proposed in the so-called
In deducting th is privileged and protected class from the
“ Payne tariff bill,” which w as ordered to lie on the table.
grand total w e have more than 28,000,000 o f our countrymen
Mi1. OLIVER presented petitions of sundry citizens o f Law- who are directly affected by th is legislation, upon whose backs
renceville and Armagh, in the State of Pennsylvania, praying and appetites is to fa ll the burden of th is indirect taxation. In
for a reduction o f the duty on raw and refined sugars, which behalf of th is great toiling m ass of our laboring people, the
were ordered to lie on the table.
wealth-producing people of th is country, these people who sup
Mr. DEPEW presented m emorials of compositors, stereo port the Government in tim e o f peace and fight its battles in
typers, pressmen, and m ailers employed by the Bingham ton tim e of war, the great m ajority of whom make their living by
Press, of Bingham ton, N. Y., rem onstrating against any change the sw eat of their brow, I desire to enter my protest against
in the rates on pulp and paper a s fixed by the H ouse bill, the passage of th is bill, w hich carries a duty o f about 46 per
w hich were ordered to lie on the table.
cent ad valorem ; and when the m axim um duty of 25 per cent
H e also presented petitions of sundry eitizens of New York, ad valorem is added to each item on the 31st of March next,
praying for the restoration of the duty on foreign oil produc as provided in the m aximum and minimum rate amendment,
the average rate w ill be som ething like 71 per cent, making it
tion, which w as ordered to lie on the table.
the highest tariff bill th a t has been passed in th is country, or
CALLING OF THE BOLL.
by any legislative body in the world’s history. The average
Mr. H EYBUR N. Mr. President, I suggest the absence o f a duty in the D ingley bill is 44.88 per cent. T his is a reduction
w ith a vengeance; and th is is the w ay the Republican party
quorum.
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The Secretary w ill call the roll.
keeps its promise to the people. No one now has any doubt
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3055
quantity of wool shall he assessed as if composed wholly of wool,
j-ius schedule shall take effect ninety days after the passage of this
until th at tim e Schedule K of the act approved July 24, 1S97,
entitled ‘An act to provide revenue for the Government and to encourage tlie industries of the U nited States,’ shall remain in full force
and effect.”
market conditions to less than 5 cents per pound alleged protec
tion. That reduction would bring us to a point in the wool
growing industry in this country which would be no better than
free trade in wool, because the one would destroy the flocks as
quickly as the other.
Mr. DOLLIVER. Now, Mr. President, I desire to return to
Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, w hat the Senator from
paragraph 370, w ith a view of offering an amendment to that Montana says would be true if the facts back of h is statem ent
paragraph.
could be verified; but the truth is that the equivalent ad
t Mr. ALDRICH. It w ill be necessary to ask for a reconsider valorem upon wool is now 45 per cent—not more, and possibly
ation of the vote by which that paragraph w as adopted; and less—and it would be a godsend to States like Montana and
* as^ that the vote be reconsidered, for the purpose of allowing Wyoming if they could be sure that they would have 45 per
the Senator from Iowa [Mr. D olliver ] to offer his amend cent on the value of their wool standing all the tim e between
ment.
them and the foreign imports of wool into the United States.
BURKETT. It seems to me that the amendment pro- B ut I can demonstrate that this simple scheme of wool assess
~ f e<~ ay the Senator from Iowa [Mr. D olliver] should be ment takes away from the good people in Montana and W yo
acted upon one way or the other.
ming what it appears to give them, and that in reality I would be
thii 1‘ O L I V E R . Mr. President, I do not desire to have any- conferring a blessing upon Montana if I could secure to every
the R eco16 <£one w ith
amendment than to have it printed in sheep husbandman there an authentic, bona fide ad valorem of
45 per cent on the wool that enters the market of the United
sidor-5 r i}1E SID E NT pro tempore. I s there objection to recon- States. I do not desire to mix that question up, although if the
Choi
1 le rote by which paragraph 370 w as agreed to? The Senator from Montana desires, I w ill offer another amendment
f ‘ r hears none. The amendment proposed by the Senator and ask that they h e considered together. It m ight embarrass
me if they were both adopted; but they might as well die peace
rr?
that paragraph w ill be stated,
strii- S ecretary. A t the end of the paragraph it is proposed to fully in the same transaction. [Laughter.]
The PR ESID EN T pro tempore. The amendment w ill be
1*.. 'f i?ut tbe Peri°cl and in lieu thereof to insert a colon and
the following proviso:
stated.
The S ecr etar y . Add at the same place the follow ing pro
arU cfo^irf nni-AL*11! n o « oVe5L»sh al 1«0 ie duty on any ot tlle foregoing
paiagraplis 368, 369, or 3 i0 exceed 60 per cent ad valorem. viso :
panm m m cL n
Mr’ 1>residcnt. I desire to say that those
ucts nf i l ' l T ' 6, tlie ones which assess the duties upon by-prodextract« „01stad .manufacture, w hat are commonly called “ w ool
Plaints m ^ w
W° 01 wa?t e s ” ° ne of the most pathetic com thies c o n X r o * ,me_7 aEd 1 confess that it has touched my svi
rmpaon w c S ^ S ^ J 8 the fact that the framework of our duties
1.0
J S L " * ™ * * tho lighter shrinkage ca
2 S !£ 2 * & £ S 2 »
h - t 5 ‘he S S E S S S
P M lS te to S h S L S f
!te a
frnm
rig h t to
supplem ent ilie lh o rta g e 5
aIMl Ieavins U u ' 11 to
faetm -ing purposes b j S t a g “ h « e S S ® c f * 2 r p,"7?” U
K
l t Wlth
woolen m anufactures, the knit-coo,m
£ th e card ed
» « rS s ^ a * a S ffi5
5
S5 a
buv nJ f,! y 0n WOdl> b u t they do n o t like to be compelled to
—r-o u A
n
f rtbAeir
A vompeutors
com petitors m
th e necessary m aterials
a te ria ls of th
their
e ir craft
c ra ft
by a rate higher than
A/
th an we have been accustomed
accustom ed to
Consequently, I have d ra w n th a t little am endm ent a ttach in g
,te tn i ,a n i" ^ ph :!70' an d P re sid in g th a t these wool w astes s M I
of t h f SS^ iiUSt eXa<?tly as th i* llin assesses them b u t th a t m!
m otnt ai;tlclcs mentI°ned in those p a ra g ra p h s shall, in th e agd
^.regate, bear a d u ty in excess of (50 per cent. T h a t e q u a liz e d
lllaces th a t level of charge an d a s s e s s m S E
nough adequately to p ro tect nil in te rests an d to deliver them
they say, out of the h an d s o f th e ir ad v ersa ries
V“ v
lu tc c
o ir u a iic U
,10f. r niust be remembered that these w astes are a prodas to iioll>Ured W°o1, suP°rior to the scoured -wool itself, except
Mr. DOLLIVER. And rags.
vif . ; CARTER. The rags of the world we do not desire to in. mto the market or into the clothing o f the people of the
United States.
Mr. President, the Senator’s amendment does not apply to
rags exclusively. It takes in quantities of wool advanced in the
cost of manufacture beyond the scoured stage, and reduces the
duty of 11 cents a pound on wool of the first class in certain
P rovided, T hat in no case shall tlie duty upon wools, wool w astes,
noils, or any of the foregoing articles in the previous paragraphs of
this schedule exceed 60 per cent ad valorem.
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, the representatives of the
woolgrowers have alw ays believed that an indirect attack,
through wool duties, upon noils and similar products would be
fatal to the wool duties, and I agree with them.
Mr. BACON. I should like to inquire of the Senator from
Iowa if I am correct in understanding that the maximum which
he puts upon wool, according to his own statement, exceeds the
present duty on wool by 15 per cent?
Mr. DOLLIVER. It d o es; but it is the maximum. I do not
desire to interfere w ith the actual wool duties that are collected.
Mr. BACON. Is it 15 per cent in excess?
Mr DOLLIVER. That is the maximum. I am trying to
equalize the duties. We have got here on wools at a given rate
an equivalent ad valorem of 45 per cent, and yet in the same
bill the wool w astes cast up, many of them, in the process of
m anufacture are assessed at a higher rate than the assessm ent
U! Mr 'sM O O Tlf’Mr President, I desire to call attention to the
fact that if the price of wool should drop in a foreign country
to 15 cents, under a maximum ad valorem duty of 60 per cent a
pound, we would only have a duty of 9 cents on wool, instead
o f ' l l cents; and when wool is low is the very tim e that the
woolgrower wants his protection. I certainly hope that the
amendment w ill not be adopted.
Mr. DOLLIVER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the first
amendment. I shall not press the second.
/ -'Mr. OWEN. Before the yeas and nays are taken I should
like to submit a table giving the actual market value of wool
from 1885 to 1907, as compiled by Messrs. Mauger and Avery,
of New York. I submit this table for the purpose of showing,
in connection w ith the argument made against the suggestions
which I submitted in regard to the relative cost of labor to tne
gross product in the matter of woolen yarns and blanke ,
the value of wool has not changed in such a way as w ™ k«
any substantial difference in the relation _ of the «
toward the gross product of t h e m ateria!; in other wor , the
were printed in 1897, so that his figures on the cost of m aterials
w ill show a comparatively small variation in the price oi wool
in 1898 and 1897.
. „ . . . .. .
I submit also a table of labor cost, showing that the increased
labor cost to 19GG, as far as tlie tables are brought up, w as a
little more tlian the increase in the price of wool. So that the
ratio submitted by Carroll D. W rights tables w ill not be modi
fied in any degree whatever by the change in the price of wool
as compared w ith th e change in the labor cost.
Tlie PR ESID EN T pro tempore. In the absence of objection,
the tables w ill be printed as requested.
__
The tables referred to follow.
3056
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
J tjnb 10,
Marlcet value of w ool, 1885 to 1907.
NO.
193.---- F I N E ,
M E D IU M ,
AND
C O A R SE
W A S H E D C L O T H IN G O H IO F L E E C E W O OL IN
JA N U A R Y , A P R IL , J U L Y , AND OC TO B ER ,
THE
1885
EASTERN
TO 1907.
M A R K E T S : P R IC E S
AT
THE
B E G IN N IN G
OF
(D a ta furnished by Messrs. Mauger & Avery, New York.]
January.
April.
July.
Medi Coarse. Fine.
um.
Medi Coarse.
um.
October.
Tear.
Fine.
Medi Coarse.
um.
Fine.
Fine.
Medi
um. Coarse.
Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents.
33
29
34
32
32
28
32
31
28
33
35
32
36
34
35
32
33
30
33
33
29
35
38
34
38
34
33
37
33
33
34
34
32
37
36
34
35
33
31
31
34
33
29
31
34
33
31
31
38
33
34
33
37
31
35
33
37
39
32
31
37
29
33
32
36
29
37
33
33
31
37
29
33
37
31
32
35
37
30
31
31
29
31
35
35
31
30
29
33
34
31
29
30
29
28
34
33
29
29
30
32
24
21
31
25
24
26
23
24
21
23
21
20
19
23
19
21
20
21
18
20
19
161
20
19
171
18
19
18
21
18
21
19
211
19
19
21
18
18
18
19
17
18
17
21
19
21
19
221
20
29
211
231
21
27
25
30
26
29
29
291
251
241
30
241
281
28
29
29
24
251
261
331
28
24
31
29
311
27
29
361
311
32j
35
351
30J
281
281
311
271
261
26J
29
26
27
25
27
241
26
22
261
25
25
23
261
24
251
25
261
24
26g
25
28
281
26
251
31
30
27
291
301
26
311
311
27
32
311
28
321
291
331
331
291
321
321
321
301
321
331
311
35
36
34
34
35
36
36
35
36
36
39
34
38
36
34
34
34
38
36
37
36
38
33
33
39
34
36
34
35
38
38
34
36
35
34
36
1885..
1888..
1887..
1888..
1889..
1890..
1891.
1892..
1893.
1891..
1896-
1896.
1897.
1898.
1899.
1900_.
19011902..
19031904..
19051906..
1907-
N o t e b y M e s s r s . M a u g e r & A v e r y .— This table exhibits in a concise form the prices of the three grades of a standard dom estic fleece
wool in the_ seaboard m arkets a t the beginning of each quarter. In its present shape it is deemed to be intelligible to all interested in wool.
In the special features of character anil condition, “ w ashed Ohio fleece wool ” is less subject to variation than any other description, and
thus is more a basis o f value than any other class. AVool, ow ing to its wide variety, difference in character and condition, and liab ility to
shrink in cleaning, is precluded from speculative operations w hich apply to products w hich may be dealt in as “ fu tures.” For these rea
sons th e prices of wool are not liable to the same changes as cotton, w heat, etc.
W ages and hours of labor.
NO.
109.---- W A G ES A N D H O U R S O F L A B O R : P E R C E N T OF IN C R E A S E ( + ) OR D E C R EA SE ( —) IN 1906, A S C O M PA R ED W I T H P R E V IO U S Y E A R S , IN E M
P L O Y E E S , H O U R S P E R W E E K , W A G ES P E R H O U R , F U L L -T IM E W E E K L Y E A R N IN G S P E R E M P L O Y E E , R E T A IL P R IC E S O F FOOD, AND P U R C H A S IN G T O W E R
O F H O U R L Y W A G ES AND O F F U L L -T I M E W E E K L Y E A R N IN G S P E R E M P L O Y E E , M E A S U R ED BY R E T A IL P R IC E S O F FO O D , 1890 TO 1906.
[From reports of the Bureau of Labor, D epartm ent of Commerce and Labor.
Computed from the relative figures shown on page 210.]
Per cent of increase (+ ) or decrease ( —) in 1906 as compared w ith previous years.
Calendar year.
Employ
ees.
+42.9
+50.7
+46.9
+44.1
+43.8
+51.9
+48.2
+44.9
+41.6
+34.3
+27.5
+23.6
+20.0
+15.6
+13.0
+13.7
+ 7.0
The P R E SID E N T pro tempore. On tlie pending amendment
the Senator from Iow a [Mr. D olliver ] h a s , demanded the yeas
and nays.
Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President, before the yeas and nays
are taken I desire to say another word, which I overlooked.
T his amendment does not propose to fix any rate; it fixes a
maximum rate, beyond which the assessm ent sh all not go. In
m any cases the specific rate as reported by the Senate com
m ittee w ill be less than th is m axim um rate; but in the case of
the cheaper varieties o f n oils and many varieties of these
w astes, if we allow ed the specific rate to stand a t 10 cents, as
the Senate com mittee has fixed it, the equivalent ad valorem
would be something fabulous and very oppressive to these good
people. Therefore I merely include th is m axim um lim itation,
so that in the calculation of these specific assessm ents, when
they rise above 60 per cent, these two lines that I put in w ill
stop it there, thereby not only reducing it somewhat, but equal
izing it throughout the schedule.
Hours per Wages per
week.
hour.
- 4 .6
- 5 .3
- 5 .1
- 5 .1
- 4 .9
- 4 .4
- 4 .7
- 4 .4
- 4 .2
- 4 .3
- 3 .8
- 3 .3
- 2 .8
- 2 .0
- 1 .2
- .5
- .5
+24.2
+23.S
+23.8
+23.2
+23.1
+26.9
+26.3
+24.6
+24.7
+24.0
+21.8
+17.7
+15.0
+10.7
+ 6.8
+ 6.2
+ 4.5
Full-time
weekly
earnings
per
employee.
Retail
prices of
food,
weighted
Recording
to
family
consump
tion.
+18.5
+17.3
+17.6
+17.0
+17.1
+21.3
+20.4
+19.1
+19.5
+18.6
+17.1
+13.8
+11.9
+ 8.5
+ 5.5
+ 5.6
+ 3.9
+15.7
+ 13.0
+11.5
+13.5
+10.8
+16.0
+18.3
+21.2
+20.1
+17.2
+16.3
+14.4
+10.0
+ 4.3
+ 4.9
+ 3.6
+ 2.9
Purchasing power,
measured by retail
prices of food, of—
Hourly
w ages.
+ 7.3
+ 9.6
+11.1
+ 8.5
+11.1
+ 9.3
+ 6.8
+ 2.8
+ 3.8
4- 5.7
+ 4.7
+ 2.8
+ 4.5
+ 6.0
+ 1.8
4“ 2.5
+ 1.4
Full-time
weekly
earnings
per
employee.
+2.4
+3.9
+5.5
+3.0
+5.7
+ 4.5
+1.8
- 1 .7
- .6
+1.2
+ .7
— .6
+1.7
+4.0
+ .6
+2.0
+1.0
Now, I w ant to say another word-----Mr. BACON. Before the Senator passes from that, the point
he w as on, I w ish to know if I understand him correctly. I under
stand the Senator now to say that, w hile the 60 per cent m axi
mum does exceed by 15 per cent the average o f the duties on
wool, there are some duties collected under the specifics which
rise above 60 per cent. Am I correct in that?
Mr. DOLLIVER. I w ill say to the Senator from Georgia
th at the amendment upon w hich the vote is about to be taken
does not allude to wool, but is confined entirely to noils and
wool by-products.
I would like to have the attention of my friend from Montana
[Mr. Carter ]. There has never been an hour in my life that I
have not been interested in the prosperity of the section of the
country which has been honored for so many years by his public
service. I am a frequent visitor there. I have become attached
to its people. I have been especially attached to them, because
it seemed to m e when I first w ent there th at they w ere making
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
Showing difference betw een export and home price of certain specified
articles— Continued.
Articles and description.
Export
price.
Home
price.
Di fference.
Screwdrivers, Disston’s electric, 12-inch...per dozen.
Shoe dressing, Whittemore's:
“ Gilt Edge
................................................. do__
o, 7 Baby Elite ” ................................ .................do—
Shotguns. Stevens's:
JU°-105............................................... ................ each.
No. 107.............................................................. do—
„ N o .ffii..............................................................do—
nmoked-beef shavers,Enterprise, No. 23_____ do___
oQuares, Disston’s:
Try, rosewood, 10-inch, No. 1.............. per dozen..
Tr«r t *"inch----------------------------------- ------eaeh_
nv . \ Lovell s mouse and rat, metallic..per gross.
J-Towels, Disston's brick, 8-inch, No. 1___per dozen.
v isos:
$1.36
$1.86
Per cent.
37
1.20
.60
1.75
.07
46
12
2.80
3.00
8.67
4.32
4.25
4.50
9.75
5.55
52
50
12
28
1.66
1.10
5.50
4.07
2.88
1.46
7.33
6.00
72
13
335
47
Hinged, No. 1______ _______________ each.
1.80
Combination, with legsockets_______ d o ...
6.40
Bonney’s, No. 112................................... per dozen..
2.25
” htenes. Elgin movement:
t wenty-year gold-filledcase...........................each.
7.98
dilveroid case................................................... do__ , 3.04
Wrenches, Hawkeye, “ 5 in 1 ”_________per dozen.. ' 3.60
4.00
8.00
2.84
122
25
26
10.23
4.47
4.50
23
47
25
Armstrong's—
Showing differences in discounts between export and home prices.
Articles and description.
E xport discount
from list.
Auger bits:
Per cent.
Irwin's solid center................. .
60, 10, and 10
Snell’s .........
70
Snell's “ King ” .............. ..........
60 and 10
Auger handles, Gunn’s N o. 5,
adjustable and ratchet................
35
Beils, Texas cow.............................
50 and 10
Bird cages. Hendryx’s brass.........
.50
Bolt clippers, “ New Easy ”.........
GO, 10, and 5
Bolts:
Machine, y by 4 inches and
smaller,_____________ ____
80 and 10
Carriage, 8 by 6 inches and
smaller...................................
80 and 10
Tire_______________________
80, 10, and 5
Borers, bunghole, Enterprise.......
40 and 2
Braces, Brays:
Genuine “ SpoiTord’s ”. . . . ___
Ratchet. Nos. 81-161..................
60 and 10
Ratchet, Nos. 83-143..................
60 and 10
Ratchet, Nos. 62-142.............>___
70
Ratchet, Nos. 63-166..................
60 and 10
Sleeve, Nos. 207-214...................
CO, 10, and 10
Sleeve, Nos. 407-414...................
60 and 10
Sleeve, Nos. 603-614..................
60 and 10
Plain, Nos. 306-314.................
70
Can openers, “ King ”1..................
25
Cartridges, rim fire.............. ...........
60, 10, 10, and 6
Chains, kennel.................................
60 and 10
Coffee mills, Enterprise..................
40 and 10
Door rollers and hangers,
Lane’s........................................ ......
60, 10, 10, and 5
Gauges, Disston's steel and cen
ter....................................................
45
Harness snaps, Covert’s:
“ Tro.ian ”......... .........................
50 and 10
“ Yankee ” ..................... ........ .
50
“ Derby ”____________
40 and 10
Lawn sprinklers, E nterprise.......
40 and 2
Levels, Starrett’s bench and
pocket................................... ......... .
40 and 5
Oilstones, “ Idly White ” and
'• W ashita,” No. 1.......................
Plumbs, levels, etc., Disston’s___ 0,10, 10, 10, and 5
Sausage stutiers, Enterprise.........
40 and 2
Saws, Disston’s:
Nos. 7, 107,107J, 3, and 1...........
45 and 7{
Combination.......................... __
45 and 7J
Nos. 12, 16, DS, 120, 76, 8...........
40 and 10
Compass and keyhole_______
40 and 10
Butcher.......................................
50
Framed wood______ _______
50
Band___________ _________
70, 10, and 10
Scroll saws, Barnes's velocipede...
30
Serew-drivers, Disston’s electric...
70, 10, 10, and 10
Smoked-beef shavers, Enterprise..
40 and 10
Squares, Disston’s:
Try, rosewood handle_______ 0,10, 10, 10, and 5
S ted ....................................... .....
45
Traps, Lovell's rat and mouse___
50
Trowels, Disston’s brick................
45 and 7J
Vises:
Armstrong's—
Plain and hinged.............. .
80 and 10
Pipe........................................
60
Bonney’s ......................................
50
Home discount Differfrom list.
ence.
Per cent.
50 and 10
60
50
Per ct.
.39
33J
39
15 and 10
50
30
50, 10, and 10
18
11
40
18
75, 10, and 5
75 and 10
25
17
27
80
25
60
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
33J
39
30
63g
30
54
39
39
663
33J
64
50
60
20 and 25
11
11
60 and 10
25, 7J, and 10
40
30 and 2
25
30
33J
37
39
19
335 and 5
334
60 and 10
25 and 7J
33J
72
18
30 and
SO and
25 and
25 and
27
27
28
28
40
50
65
14
37
23
7J
74
7J
7J
30*
25
60
20
70
25 and 7J
60 and 10
25, 7J, and 10
33J
25
60
50
30 and 10
13
335
47
I
122
25
26
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill report the pend
ing paragraph.
The S ecretary . Page 214, paragraph 652.
3161
Mr. KEAN. That has been agreed to.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. If there be no objection-----Mr. KEAN. That was agreed to last night w ith the words
“ or refined ” stricken out.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. That amendment was agreed to.
If there be no objection, the paragraph w ill he agreed to as
amended.
Mr. STONE. Which paragraph?
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Paragraph 652.
Mr. STONE. I desire to make an inquiry. I do not see tlia
Senator from Rhode Island present. I do not know who is in
charge of the bill. Is the Senator from Utah?
Mr. SMOOT. The Senator from Rhode Island w ill be here
in just a minute.
Mr. STONE. I observe, Mr. President, that in paragraph 59
caustic, or hydrate of, potash bears a duty of l cent a pound,
and upon chlorate of potash there is 2 cents per pound, the
latter being a reduction of one-half cent per pound below the
Dingley rate. I wish to inquire of the Senator having charge
o f the bill why carbonate of potash and hydrate of, or caustic,
potash, not refined, in sticks or rolls, are put upon the free list,
w hile chlorate of potash, for instance, is put on the dutiable list.
They have exactly, as I am Informed, the same basic m aterial,
and both are used in the manufactures of this country. Chlo
rate of potasli bears 2 cents under the hill, while carbonate of
potash is put on the free list. Muriate of potash, which is the
basic m aterial of both, is found chiefly in Germany, and that
country has a practical monopoly of the mines from which that
m aterial is derived. The raw material is largely imported here,
and is used, so I am told, largely for fertilizing and other pur
poses. Muriate of potash is on the free list, as it should be,
but if chlorate of potash is to be kept on the dutiable list, then
carbonate of potash and caustic potash should also be made
dutiable.
.
,
,
I do not see why th is discrimination should be made, w hy a
duty should not be levied upon the one as well as upon the
other. A large amount of all these is being imported. I am
informed that o f carbonate of potash in 1907 oyer twenty-five
and a h alf million pounds were im poited, in 1908, over
twenty-four and a half million pounds ; and o f caustic potash
in 1907, 7,483,000 pounds; in 1908, 5,947,000 pounds. They ought
to be made a source of revenue. I do not care to make any
motion w ith reference to the matter, hut I should like to ask
the Senator from Rhode Island if he objects, or has a reason
for objecting, to putting these articles on the dutiable list, and
why they are discriminated against in favor of other like
products.'
.
, , .
Mr. ALDRICH. The deposits of potash m Germany give
them a great advantage over everybody else in the world, and
this potash goes into the production of fertilizers and various
things o f that sort. There is no competition in this country.
There can be none. It has been thought desirable in all the
tariff bills in recent years to keep it upon the free list, for the
benefit of the consumers in this country, there being practically
no competition here.
Mr. STONE. Then, I think I will in due tim e move to put
chlorate of potash on the free list, for, if chlorate is to be put
on the dutiable list, the other two ought to go on. They ought
all to pay duty or all should be free.
Mr. ALDRICH. My opinion is there is no considerable man
ufacture of chlorate in the United States.
Mr. STONE. There is of the other.
Mr. ALDRICH. Not very much.
Mr. STONE. Not very much.
Mr. ALDRICH. It stands in a different position from muri
ate o f potash, and the manufacturers^ in the United States
having the advantage of free raw material
Mr. STONE. The Senator did not understand me. I said
nothing about muriate of potash. Muriate is the raw m ate
rial—
Mr. ALDRICH. Yes.
Mr. STONE. Out o f which the others are made ; out of which
chlorate of potash is made, caustic potash is made, and car
bonate o f potash is made.
Mr. ALDRICH. Of course chlorate of potash is not a fer
tilizer, and the farmers are not especially interested.
Mr. STONE. Neither is caustic potash.
--- —
cl £,Lt*a i many
ivii. iiiv im ii. n . m-mv * x «_ .»»_>
things—soap making and for medicinal purposes. I think the
paragraph is not exactly correct, but it is as near correct as we
could make it in this connection.
Tlie VICE-PRESIDENT. The R ecord shows that paratrmnv.
652 w as passed over at the request of the Senator from w
miug. Does the Senator from Wyoming desire to take it
morning?
1L ulJ m is
3162
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President----- Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. Is that soda?
Mr. ALDRICH. N ot soda, but potash.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill report the next
paragraph which has been passed over.
Mr. ALDRICH. H as the Senator from Wyoming any objec
tion to paragraph 652?
Mr. CLARK o f Wyoming. I think I have.
Mr. ALDRICH. Suppose we agree to it, and then if the Sena
tor w ants to take it up later, we w ill reconsider it.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. W ithout objection, paragraph 652
agreed to.
Mr. OWEN. I have in my hand a copy o f the proceedings of
a conference of the independent oil producers and independent
oil refiners, which took place in W ashington, April 21, 1909. I
should like to have it put in the form of a document (S. Doc.
88), if there is no objection.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Is there objection? The Chair
hears none. It is so ordered. The Secretary w ill report the
next paragraph passed over.
The S ecr eta r y . The n ext paragraph passed over is 655.
Mr. ALDRICH. I offer as a new paragraph 655A, radium.
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The Secretary w ill report the
amendment.
The S ecr eta r y . On page 215, after line 6, in se r t:
655. Radium.
The amendment w as agreed to.
Mr. NELSON. W ith respect to paragraph 658-----Mr. LODGE. In paragraph 657 I move to strike out the
comma after the word “ gems ” and to insert a sem icolon; after
the word “ statuary,” in the same line, I move to strike out the
comma, and after the word “ sculpture ” I move to strike out
the comma.
The V IC E-PR ESID ENT. W ithout objection, the amend
ments are agreed to.
Mr. NELSON. I desire to offer an amendment to para
graph 660.
Mr. ALDRICH. W hat is that?
Mr. NELSON. Paragraph 660. I ask that it may be recon
sidered in order that I may offer an am endm ent
The VICE-PRESIDENT. There is no amendment there.
The Senator can offer his amendment.
Mr. NELSON. My amendment is to strike ou t in line 3, page
216, the words “ and sago flour,” and in support of that amend
ment I ask that the letter w hich I send to the desk be read.
The “VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill report the
amendment and, w ithout objection, thereafter read the letter.
The S ec r e t a r y . On page 216, after the word “ crude,” strike
out the words “ and sago flour.”
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary w ill read the letter.
The Secretary read as follow s:
M innesota P otato Starch Company,
A noka, M inn., M ay 3, 1309.
Hon. ICncte N elson ,
J une 12
Mr. NELSON subsequently said :
Mr. President, I have some more letters which I should like
to be incorporated w ith my remarks on th is subject, following
the letter which w as read heretofore.
The PR ESID IN G OFFICER. W ithout objection, the letters
referred to by the Senator from M innesota w ill be so incor
porated.
The letters referred to are as fo llo w s:
Caley H ardware Company ,
P rin ceton , M inn., M ay S, 1909.
Hon. K nute N elson ,
U nited S ta te s Senate, W ashington, D. C.
D ear S i r : I w rite you in regard to duty on potato starch. I un! erstand th at sago flour and tapioca flour (which are potato starch)
re on the free list.
Now, If there is not at least a duty of l i cents per pound placed on
hese products, it w ill practically close a ll of the potato starch industry
the West.
In foreign countries I understand they raise from 450 to GOO bushels
of potatoes to the aero, and here in the W est the farmers raise from
75 to 150 bushels to the acre, hence we can not compete w ith the for
eign m anufacturers a t the same price, and we have been running our
starch factory w ith out making any money for some years now.
Now, Mr. N elson , I hope you w ill interest yourself in behalf of the
potato starch makers.
Thanking you in advance, I remain,
T. H. Caley,
P residen t Princeton P o ta to Starch Co.
T iie F armers ’ Cooperative S tarch Company ,
N orth liranch, M inn., M ay 3, 1909.
Hon. K ncte N elson ,
W ashington, D. C.
D ear S ir : H aving paid a close atten tion to the daily review by the
United S tates Senate in relation to the tight going on there by some
parties aim ing to get the sago and tapioca (starches) on the free list,
I have been instructed by managers of starch-m anufacturing concerns to
w rite and request th at you give your earnest attention toward helping
the elim ination of such move. We, as starch m anufacturers of such
starch, need all the protection possible against foreign importers on
equal basis w ith other interests. We believe in thus appealing to you
for aid and support th at you w ill stand by your duty, thus respecting
the earnest desire and need of your constituents for the m ainainance of
the present prosperity, caused principally by the enactm ent of the
McKinley Act. Believing th is to be a ju st and reasonable request by
your constituents and hoping to see the enactm ent of a ju st and fair
duty on all starches, we beg to remain,
Yours, for permanent prosperity,
F armers ’ Cooperative S tarch Company ,
C. E. Oberg , General Manager,
Per K. O. W arme , S ecretary.
R u sh City , Min n ., M ay 7, 1909.
Hon. Kncte N elson , M. C.,
W ashington, D. C.
D ear S ir : Are you aware of the fact th at the proposed tariff bill now
before the Senate specifically places sago and tapioca flours, which are
starches, in the free list, and th at it is going to require the concerted
efforts of all American starch industries to bring enough pressure to bear
to correct this great injustice? The imports of these starches have
already increased from, roughly, 2,000,000 pounds in 1882 to 50,000,000
pounds in 1908. The increase during the last five years alone being
about 34,000,000 pounds, w'ith every indication th at it w ill not only con
tinue but more largely increase if free of duty.
We respectfully urge upon you to support the movement for the
elim ination of sago and tapioca flours (starches) from the free list.
T his is v ita l to the potato-raising farmers of Chisago County, as well
as all adjoining counties in th is great potato belt.
Please do your best to promote our industry by not allow ing these
other starches to enter free of duty.
Yours, very truly,
Rusn City S tarch Company ,
By C. M. J ohnson , Secretary.
Washington, D. C.
M y D ear S enator : I f not too late, I would like to call your attention
to the clause in the proposed tariff bill placing sago and ta p iica flour
on the free list. T his commodity comes into direct competition w ith
the potato-starch business, w hich is m anufactured quite extensively in
th is part o f M innesota, from culls and sm all potatoes ; and also from
Mr. ALDRICH. The proposition of the Senator from Minne
th e good ones during tim es of overproduction. The starch factories
are, w ith hardly any exception, owned and operated by farm ers in their sota is to take an article which has alw ays been upon the free
respective communities. They are not, as the term is used, money
making p ro p o sitio n s; but erected and operated for the purpose of pro list and put it upon the dutiable list a t a very high rate. I
tecting them selves again st low-priced potatoes, poor crops, or seasons of think the facts a s stated by the Senator’s correspondent are
rot. W hile sago and tapioca are called “ flour,” they are used for starch not correct. There is a combination in this business, which
purposes, and should properly be classified as starch, for as such they may not include the gentleman who w rites the letter, but does
come in direct com petition w ith potato starch, and are used to replace
th is commodity in most instances. I know th a t the bill provides for include a large part of the business, I think. I am quite w ill
the retaining o f the tariff on potato starch, which is quite s a tis fa c to r y ; ing that th is amendment should go over. I think I can con
but sta tistic s show th a t m illions of pounds o f sago and tapioca are now
being imported each year, and replacing to a large extent the potato vince the Senator th at th is attem pt to revise the tariff upward
starch.
to a very great extent is not justified by conditions.
In fact, we know th a t for several years p ast the demand has been
Mr. NELSON. W hether there is a starch trust or not I do
lessened considerable for potato starch, and largely on th is account. I
believe, and I think th a t the people of the W est believe, th a t the tariff not know; but there is certainly no starch trust among the
should be reduced only on the necessities o f l i f e ; but I hardly see how people of Minnesota. In a certain portion of our State, the
th is could be classed as such, as th e production is used alm ost entirely -.northeast portion, which w as originally a pine country—it is
in cotton and carpet m ills. There is no trust or combination in the
potato-starch business. The factories are all owned and operated in rather sandy land—they found it difficult to make a living rais
rural communities, and none of them are money-making propositions. ing small grain, and they w ent into the business o f raising
Although the factories co st to build from .$12,000 to $20,000, there are potatoes. In order to have an assured market for their potato
at the present tim e about 25 factories in M innesota, and about the
same number in northern W isconsin, a few in the irrigated sections of industry they organized sm all companies and built small starch
Colorado, and the balance are a ll in the northern part o f Maine, where factories.
TYhen potatoes are high those starch factories
the potato industry is carried on e x te n siv e ly ; and w ithout them it would are not in operation, because a s a rule when potatoes out in
not be safe for the farmers to plant such enormous acreage or engage
that
country
sell for more than 25 or 30 cents a bushel, it does
so extensively in th e raising o f potatoes, for by th e aid o f the factories
they are able to realize a t lea st cost for their seed and labor from any not pay the starch factories. B ut there are many seasons when
any crop they m ight raise. The new timber sections between Brainerd potatoes are a s low as 15 and 20 cents a bushel. At that time
and Bemidji are destined to be great potato-raising sections, but w ithout
they can not afford to ship them on account of the freight, and
the factories they would be slow in developing.
If you can do anything in favor of a duty on sago and tapioca starch they are utilized by the local starch factories.
or flour, I am sure it would be very much appreciated.
The large im portation o f sago flour comes in direct compe
Yours, truly,
tition w ith the potato-starch industry, and they feel that as
R obt. W. A k in .
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3211
that they will have a common language through which they wars among them selves; they may have race w ars; they may
can communicate their ideas to each other and through which finally fall under the control of some dictator, some man of
they can obtain some conception of the great political and eco great power and ability, but if they are to be killed, I
nomic and governmental questions that are addressed to them.
would rather they should kill each other than that w e should
kill them.
T H E P H I L I P P I N E S NOT A SOURCE OS' R E V EN U E, B U T ALW AYS A B URDEN.
I believe that they must go through the process of evolution
I wish to say also regarding these islands that I do not that every country composed of diverse races m ust go through,
resulting,
perhaps, in the domination of a single race, and per
share w ith the Senator from Missouri the opinion that they
can be made at any time "the source of opulence. The forests, haps in the dominance of a single man.
B ut I do feel assured that in the future those islands w ill be
to which the Senator refers, are beautiful to the eye, but they
•ire mainly forests of soft wood. Here and there you w ill find the source of great peril to the United States. They are 7,000
a magnificent tree of hard wrood of great value; but I w as told m iles away from our basis of operations. I f w e should have
that the cost of taking out these occasional trees here and internal difficulties there, the expense of conducting the de
here in the forest w as very great. The islands are moun fense of our pg^^uWonld be enormous. Besides that, those
tainous, and you can hardly cultivate a mountain side. Thtl
provided fu rth er, T hat It is hereby declared not to be the policy
only leyei and cultivable land is the land in the river valleys andAnd
purpose of the United States to maintain permanent sovereignty
thick is very limited, and the land on the coast formed b? over the Philippine Islands, but to exercise authority in and over 'said
the wash from the mountains. The area of cultivation is ex islands only so long as may be necessary, not to exceed fifteen years
from and after the passage of this act, to organize and establish a
ceedmgiy limited.
native government capable of maintaining public order in said islands
In addition to that, all nature seems to be hostile to the d< and until such international agreements shall have been made between
the United States and foreign countries as w ill insure the independence
veiopment of the Philippine Islands. They have a constan of
said islands and the people thereof.
ecurrence of cholera; they have a constant recurrence c
•hrra and rinderpest among their cattle; so that their dratt w\tnufli$Tm 'the future as the result of a useless and costly war
animals and animals w ith which they cultivate their farms, the m aintained so far from our base of supply.^
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the
hutralo, and so forth, are destroyed year after year.
1 do not believe that those islands can be made a source of amendment of the Senator from M issouii [M i. S tone] to the
f/i ’ i, r alt h ’ and tbat beiug the fact> 1 Prefer to present it amendment.
Mr. STONE. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.
thnlT iJ,8 bal(lness to the American people, for I fear that if
The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded
sou rL
are represented to the American people as the
Prevent
Ri'eat *>durc w ealtb- the greed of many of us will to call the roll.
Mr FLINT (when his name was called). I am paired w ith
t l i w L m k T letting <hT . go‘ 1 believe the ver*v filct that
$(i0()0nnnnn -h
tllis great exIK‘,lse of $500,000,000 or the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. Culberson], who is absent
o n S r n ’f * f Ud!r? the war’ tbat tb°y are to-day costing us !b?s evening. 1 transfer that pair to the junior Senator from
that thev^viV 16 i11, ltarrv and naval expense of the Nation; and Nebraska [Mr. B rown], and vote. I vote nay.
fvfnV tn7 w lll.eost us a large expenditure in the future in fortiMr FRAZIER (when his name was called). I am paired
Wi^h th e iunior Senator from Nevada [Mr. N ix o n ]. I transfer
that pafr^to the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. C ulberson ],
m to ™ «
«
Mr °McT iu R I N "(when his name was called). I am paired
becoming convinced that there w as no glory in Z i f P C ar<? 31
w “h t h e ^ m o r ’ senator from Michigan [Mr. S m it h ]. I f he
and that there is no profit in their occu plt on and T h i T St
them 'gof W‘“ h“Ve l° be con''lD M »f »««, f e e X / w m Tet w7 , U rS N E K Sh?w h en °S s name was called). I am paired
w ifh ^ h e jnnior s S o ? from Kentucky [Mr. B radley], I f he
t h e c a s e s u m m e d C P.
were present, I should vote yea.
The objection I have to this legislation—m d t
,
vS V r a w f ORD “ i desire'to have tile R ecord show that my
vv L
w
s
-7
s°th
a
t,Pwe
Ihat’
f
°
r
1
have
alread>'
stated
f
u
l
^
m
?,
f i r rivE L E l isN ecessarily absent. H e is paired
a u s is that we are proposing to give $10 000 000 nnn.,„ny
w i t ^ f h e j m ' e r len a to r from Indiana [Mr. S h iv e l y ], I f preso the planting interests, w ith a view to s t i m u l S ^ h e ^
tion there, so that those islands, which are now povertv str iv e n '
may become prosperous. I would rather, in the d R h aru e 7f
the great benevolent trust which tve have a ss u m e
°f
« - « ? ■ Senator from
islands, appropriate a tithe of that money annually to iS stn m f
I lit o o if [Mr “ llohI . I f he were present, I should vote
ing those people, to aid them in getting central
on es which can develop sugar production there in the per
\ i r FO^TFR ( after having voted iu the affirm ative). I inS ‘» S a l S at°r ' r° m “
l8l“ d ,h ",ks
°* q n S L f ?h e™ S or S n a to r from North Dakota [Mr. McCember ]
I would rather appropriate money to train them in nurl has voted?
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair is informed that he has
Hi l]v ton<tt,1,0dS,ih U1 “ ode™ methods- to train them industlmni t to
tbeiF bands and tbeir beads- and to train
Mr. FOSTER. Then I withdraw my xote, as I h a te a pair
them in a common language— I would rather do that than
give the planters this large bounty, which in fifteen vears will
amount to $150,000,000 and in twenty years to $200,000,000.
WiMr tlSM ITH lto°fr‘ South Carolina (after having voted in the
I L a v ^ a general pair with the Senator from
I quite join w ith the Senator from M issouri in the desire affirmative)
that we should make this declaration of our purpose now, for W ashington [Mr. J ones]. As he is not present, I withdraw my
it we once determine to let them go fifteen years hence, we w ill VOtG.
then shape our course w ith a view to that result. I f we were
The result w as announced—yeas 18, nays 44, as follow s .
to attempt to determine now the method o f our withdrawal, we
YEAS— 18.
would all differ as to details; but w e can determine upon one
Stone
Money
thing, and that is that we w ill withdraw in fifteen years, and Racon
Frazier
Taliaferro
Newlands
Gore
then we can leave the elaboration of details to the future, and Bailey
Tillman
Overman
Hughes
Paynter
uLe Wl11 have plenty of time to accomplish our work of giving Clay
Johnston, Ala.
Davis
Simmons
McEnery
ese people a common language and of training them in in Fletcher
dustrial and manual pursuits.
NAYS— 44.
ih e prospect at best is not the most roseate. The tropical
Page
F lint
Chamberlain •
islands throughout the world have been beaten by the Temperate Aldrich
Gallinger
Perkins
Clapp
Beveridge
Guggenheim
P iles
^one in the products which they used to monopolize. Disease is Brandegee
Crane
Heyburn
Root
Crawford
against th e m ; the climate, tending to ease, apathy, and inertia, Briggs
Johnson, N. Dak. Scott
Depew
Bristow
| s against them. They have not that hard contest with nature Rulkeley
Kean
Smoot
Dick
Da Follette
D illingham
ltself. so far as food and clothing and shelter are concerned, Burkett
Stephenson
Dodge
Dixon
Burnham
Sutherland
that impels to work; and so I am not very hopeful that these Burrows
Nelson
Dolliver
Warner
People will develop a high order of self-government, but they Burton
Nixon
du Pont
Warren
Oliver
Elkins
Wetmore
ean maintain some form of autonomy there. They may have Carter
n iM
ir r r
Matae
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3212
Bankhead
Borah
Bourne
Bradley
Brown
Clark, Wyo.
Clarke. Ark.
Culberson
NOT VOTING— 29,
Cullom
Jones
Cummins
McCumber
Curtis
McLaurin
Daniel
M artin
Foster
Owen
Frye
Gamble
Rayner
Hale
Richardson
Shively
Sm ith, Md.
Sm ith, Mich.
Sm ith, S. C.
Taylor
J une 14,
th is evening. I transfer my pair to th e junior Senator from
Nebraska [Mr. B r o w n ] , and w ill vote. I vote “ nay.”
Mr. P IL E S (w hen the nam e of Mr. J ones w as called). My
colleague has been called aw ay from the Chamber this evening.
H e is paired w ith the junior Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
S m i t h ].
Mr. M cLAURIN (when h is name w as called ). I again an
nounce my pair w ith the junior Senator from M ichigan [Mr.
So Mr. S tone’s amendment to the amendment of the com mit S m i t h ] . If he were present, I would vote “ yea.”
tee w as rejected.
Mr. RAYNER (w hen h is name w as called ). I again an
Mr. BULKELEY. I now desire to move, if it is in order and nounce m y pair w ith the junior Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
proper to do so, that the paragraph now being considered—471d B r a d l e y ] .
I think it is entitled—be referred to the Committee on the
Mr. SM ITH of South Carolina (when his name w as called).
Philippines.
I again announce my pair w ith the junior Senator from W ash
I do th is for the reason that I do not desire, under any cir ington [M r. J o n e s ] . I f he were present, I should vote “ yea.”
cumstances, that legislation shall not be enacted a t th is session
Mr. TILLMAN (w hen his name w as called ). H as the Sena
of Congress in regard to the Philippine Islands. B ut from the tor from Vermont [Mr. D i l l i n g h a m ] voted?
exam inations I have been able to make o f the records, all meas
The VICE-PRESIDENT. H e has not.
ures heretofore considered by the Congress—revenue measures
Mr. TILLMAN. I have a general pair w ith that Senator, and
a s well as others—for the P hilippine Islands have been con therefore withhold my vote.
sidered and acted upon by the committee of this body created
The roll call w as concluded.
Mr. CLARK of W yoming (after having voted in the nega
for that purpose. It seems to me this is not the place, as I
said th is morning, for legislation w ith respect to these islands, tiv e ). I desire to inquire if the senior Senator from Missouri
[Mr. S t o n e ] has voted. I do not see him in the Chamber.
in the tariff bill w e are preparing for ourselves.
W e have already pending before the Philippine Committee of
The VICE-PRESIDENT. H e has not.
th is body an act to raise revenue for the Philippine Islands, and
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I withdraw my vote.
for other purposes. Many of the provisions of this act now
Mr. FLETCHER. I w ish to announce that my colleague is
being considered by th is committee are dependent in a large paired w ith the Senator from W est Virginia [Mr. S oott].
measure on the legislation that is proposed in the bill pending
Mr. CLARK of Wyoming. I transfer my pair w ith the Sena
before th is b od y; and it seem s much more in order, to my mind, tor from M issouri [Mr. S t o n e ] to the Senator from Kansas
that the two should be considered by the sam e committee, which [Mr. C u r t i s ] , and w ill allow my vote to stand.
can give the thought th at is necessary, in my judgment, to a
Mr. DANIEL. I am paired w ith the Senator from Maine
m atter th a t is so im portant to those possessions which w e con [Mr. F r y e ] . I f he were present, I should vote “ yea.”
trol and for the government of which the Congress of the United
Mr. FOSTER (a fter having voted in the affirm ative). Ob
States at th is tim e is responsible.
serving that the senior Senator from North D akota [Mr:
I therefore make th e motion th at the paragraph we are now M c C u m b e r ] , w ith whom I am paired, has not voted, I withdraw
considering be referred to the Committee on the Philippine my vote.
Islands.
The result w as announced—y eas 21, nays 40, as follow s:
Mr. ALDRICH. We are considering a tariff bill for the
YEAS— 21.
United States and not for the Philippine IslanQs, I would
Bacon
Gore
Newlands
Clapp
suggest.
B ailey
Clay
Hughes
Overman
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The Senator from Connecticut Brandegee
Johnston, Ala.
D avis
Paynter
Dick
La F ollette
moves to commit the substitute for 471d to the Committee on B ristow
McEnery
Bulkeley
Fletcher
th e Philippines.
Chamberlain
Frazier
M artin
Mr. DANIEL. I should lik e to ask the Senator from Rhode
NAYS— 40.
Island if there is involved in th is amendment any question of
favored nations? Does picking out certain articles to be per Aldrich
Crane
Perkins
Ileyburn
Crawford
Johnson, N. Dak. P iles
m itted to come to us free in th is fashion from an alien, which is Beveridge
Borah
Depew
Root
Kean
no part of this country, though it is said to belong to it, involve Briggs
Dixon
Scott
Lodge
us in any controversy about favored nations?
Dol liver
Smoot
Burkett
Money
Stephenson
du Pont
Nelson
I presume the answer w ill be th at the Philippine Islands are Burnham
Sutherland
N ixon
E lkins
Burrows
not a nation and not a part o f th is Nation. They are some Burton
F lint
Oliver
Warner
thing, somewhere. Their statu s is unanalysable. I t is also Carter
Warren
P age
Gal linger
Wetmore
Guggenheim
Penrose
nondescript and absolutely indescribable, and why a w ave of Clark, Wyo.
tariff or free trade in th is momentous and grave fashion should
NOT VOTING— 30.
be involved in a tariff bill for the United States is certainly
Sm ith, Mich.
McCumber
Curtis
Bankhead
only a technical statem ent w ithout any basic facts to support it. Bourne
Sm ith, S. C.
McLaurin
D aniel
I therefore think th at the motion by the Senator from Con Bradley
Stone
Owen _
D illingham
Taliaferro
Foster
necticut is a very w ise and apt motion. We have a special com Brown
Taylor
Richardson
Frye
Clarke,
Ark.
m ittee to deal w ith the P hilippine Islands and its peculiarities— Culberson
T illm an
Shively
Gamble
like the subject. There is no geography in this question. There Cullom
Simmons
H ale
Smith,
Md.
Jones
Cummins
is no jurisprudence to th is question. It has confounded the
courts and the legislatures, and is now beginning to confound
So Mr. B ulkeley ’s motion w as rejected.
and override our sedate and careful tariff provisions about our
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the
own country. It is such a close and m aterial arrangement pro substitute. W ithout objection, the substitute is agreed to.
posed about another country and another people that w e can
Mr. BULKELEY. Mr. President-----not fitly embrace it, although technicality w ill support the
The VICE-PRESIDENT. No objection is heard.
proposition, perhaps. H ere is a proposition for the introduction
Mr. BULKELEY. I should be glad to speak on that question.
into th is country of m illions upon m illions o f free trade in cer
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Connecti
tain subjects. It is con fu sin g; it is unprecedented; it is totally
cut desire to speak on the question of agreeing to the substitute?
off—uniquely by itself—and o f all things that should go to the
Mr. BULKELEY. I have no objection to an agreement to
Philippine Committee o f th is body, it seems to me to be the
the substitute.
chief.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. W ithout objection, it is agreed to.
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. The question is on agreeing to the
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I w ish to offer an amendment before
motion o f the Senator from Connecticut.
the substitute is voted upon.
Mr. BULKELEY. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.
The VICE-PRESIDEN T. Before the substitute is agreed
The yeas and nays w ere ordered, and the S ecretary proceeded upon the Senator from W isconsin desires to offer an amend
to call the roll.
ment.
Mr. BANKH EAD (when his name w as called ). I announce
Mr. BULKELEY. Do I understand the motion now is to
my pair w ith the senior Senator from Illin ois [Mr. Cullom ] for substitute th is for the paragraph of the bill?
The VICE-PRESIDENT. T hat has already been done. The
the balance of the evening.
Mr. FLIN T (w hen his name w as called ). I am paired w ith motion now is to agree to the substitute.
Mr. BULKELEY. 1 w ish to speak on that question.
the senior Senator from T exas [Mr. Culberson]. H e is absent
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
who is absent. I transfer that pair to the senior Senator from
Maine [Mr. H ale], and vote. I vote “ nay.”
Mr. CRAWFORD (when Mr. Gamble’s name was called).
My colleague | Mr. Gamble] is necessarily absent. H e is paired
'Mth the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. S hively].
Mr. BURROWS (when the name of Mr. S mith of Michigan
calIed*’ My colleague [Mr. S mith of Michigan] is paired
vwth the junior Senator from M ississippi [Mr. McL aubin ],
Mr. STO N E , i inquire whether the Senator from W’yoming
LMr. C l a r k ] has voted?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that he
has not voted.
+,/Arr’ ST 0N E - I have a general pair w ith that Senator, and
therefore withhold my vote.
The roll call was concluded.
Mr. ELKINS (after having voted in the negative). At the
T“ ' 1 r\°rte(1 1 did not observe that the junior Senator from"
IUlLKY] w as absent from the Chamber. I am
1 \ t :y,lth tbat Senator, and therefore withdraw my vote
r\r;r'^1' RYE- 1 in(3uire if the senior Senator from Virginia
LMr. D aniel ] has voted?
h as1not>RESIDING 0F F IC E R - The Chair is informed that hi
tliMt1;...1!^? E;, 1 am Paired with tbat Senator, but I transfer
voto P T
tlle Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. P enrose] add
,u ie . i vote nay.”
\
called fromEfT‘ ^
colleague [Mr. McL a u m n ] has just been
paired wifi 1.'° 9 bamber- H e is unavoidably absent, and is
If mv miin tbe Junior Senator from Michigan [Mr. S m ith ],
M y rm
were present, he would vote “ yea.”
Senalto(r f ^ BTEKLAI,X‘ 1 haYe a general Pair w ith the junior
I shouldfvrot“ “ y e a ”"
[ ' ° ™ ] ‘ If he were P»*ent,
tim ir'rBAC* °N (aftcr bavin« voted in the affirmative) At the
on t h l nSt
VOte- 1 had g o t t e n that I had agreed to pair
B everidgjg'
Z
\ t h % S,e ni,,r Senator from Indiana [Mr.
fro, « r
•• 1 understand, however, th a t the junior Senator
fion \ irginia [Mr. M a r t in ] has not voted. I therefore tran s
my pan with the Senator from Indiana
cT°M v ^
o t t ’ aa(1 wi.11 Permit my vote t o ‘stand.
d ila to r
iMl. oCOl I. I desire to niinnnnpp mi K/\R i r
B aco n
B o ra h
B ris to w
B ro v in
B u rk e tt
C la p p
C lay
A ldrich
Bourne
Brandegee
griKgs
B u lk e ley
B urnham
Burrow s
B urton
C a r te r
Crane
Bailey
B ankhead
Beveridge
B radley
Chamberlain
9 »rk. Wyo.
Clarke, Ark.
YEAS— 27.
Cummins
Davis
D o lliv e r
F le tc h e r
F o s te r
F r a z ie r
G ore
H ughes
J o h n s to n , A la.
L a F o lle tte
McEnery
M oney
N e w la n d s
O v e rm a n
O w en
P a y n te r
S im m o n s
S m ith . S. C.
T a lia fe r r o
T illm a n
N A Y S — 38.
C ra w fo rd
C ullom
1 lepew
D ick
1 )illin g h a m
du P o n t
F lin t
F ry e
G a llin g e r
G u g g en h eim
H e y b u rn
P ile s
J o h n s o n , N. D ak . R o o t
Jones
S c o tt
K ean
Sm oot
Lodge
S u th e rla n d
M d 'u m b e r
W a rn e r
N elso n
W a rre n
N ix o n
W e tm o re
l'a g e
P e rk in s
N O T V O T IN G — 2G.
C u lb e rso n
M c L a u rin
C u rtis
M a rtin
D a n ie l
O liv e r
D ix o n
P e n ro s e
E lk in s
R ayner
G am b le
R ic h a rd s o n
H a le
S h iv ely
S m ith , M d.
S m ith , M ich.
S te p h e n so n
S to n e
T a y lo r
E v C o l l e t t e ’s amendment to the amendment of the
rn. l Rce °U Finance w as rejected.
Inc in RRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on agree[be amendment o f the committee,
rp, ' ALDRICH. On that I ask for the yeas and nays.
M • p <ay !lI1d uays were ordered.
jn 9 }' E T C H E R . I desire to offer an amendment to the pendP h 'r u . itute and have it read. My amendment will leave the
‘BPPhie Islands to enjoy and retain the concession o f 25 per
_ ,w bicb they already enjoy. In other words, the act of
March 8. 1002, would still remain in force in reference to all
importations from the Philippine Islands. I should like to have
^ a m e n d m e n t read.
D ie PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be read to the Senate.
I he S e c r e t a r y . Amend the substitute amendment on page 1J
L
3251
line 5, by striking out the colon after the word “ countries ”
and adding the words “ except as provided by existing law now
in force,” and striking out the remainder of the substitute, so
that it w ill read :
471d. T h e re s h a ll be lev ied , co llected, a n d p a id u p o n a il
in g in to th e U n ite d S ta te s fro m th e P h ilip p in e Is la n d s th e
w h ic h a r e re q u ire d to be levied, co llected , a n d p a id u p o n
im p o rte d fro m fo re ig n c o u n trie s , ex c ep t a s p ro v id e d by
n o w in fo rce.
a r tic le s com
r a te s o f d u ty
lik e a r tic le s
e x is tin g law
Mr. FOSTER, Mr. President, it is my purpose to submit
some remarks upon the amendment. Understanding that the
Senator from Oklahoma has the preference at this hour, I sup
pose I am compelled to yield to him.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, do I understand that the committee desires to have a vote, or that it can be taken at this )
time?
J
■ Mr. ALDRICH. What is that?
Mr. FOSTER. It can not, because I want to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised of the
desire of the Senator from Louisiana to address the Senate he
re a vote is taken.
Mr. OWEN. Before beginning my remarks, I would a sk ,A
there being no objection, that I be not expected or required to !
read the various tables wrhich I shall use as illustrative of my j
comments on this bill or any matter which is^ not essential to j
the statement I desire to submit to the Senate in regard to it.
f
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma
asks unanimous consent to insert certain tables in the R e c o r d
without reading, the same to be considered a p a it of his re
marks. Is there objection?
Mr. ALDRICH. What is the request?
Mr. CLAPP. It strikes me, while there may not be any ob
jection to it at this time, it is better to preserve the order that
when a speaker reaches anything which lie desires to have
printed, he call the attention of the Senate to the fact that he
desires to insert it without reading.
^
„
,
Mr. GALLINGER. We might want something read.
precedent,
Mr. CLAPP. Yes. It would establish rather a bad pre
1 MnCULLOM.
We had better adhere to the rule
no objection whatever to the rule. It
: to me. The Senate, I am sure, w ill
,ad in extenso, as it would take some /
, them.
. .
T 4.1. • ,
..... ,
sir. u L i r r .
mere matter of form, I think.
_
Mr OWEN Mr President, no consideration would induce
;
me to propose or contend for a tariff reduction which would
seriously harm any American industry whose existence is ju sti
fied by the natural resources of our oountiy.
Upon my oath as a Senator of the Lnited States, I feel
charged with a solemn responsibility of de ending the welfare
of the people of the United States, mcluding as vigorously and
‘as distinctly the interests of the people ° - ame 0f Rhode
Island, or of California as the interests
i leop le of Okla
homa. I shall discharge that duty as an , m eiican in a broad
and liberal spirit, with patience, with tolerance, and perfect
fairness
By that sense of duty I have felt impelled to submit to the
Senate the reasons which make it impossible for me to support
II. R. 1438. I can not agree to the passage of this bill without
the registration of a solemn protest against i .
p am y see
the evil results upon the people of tbe 9 n9 ed.u ! a^ 7 , ''I1!*:'1
pave followed the McKinley bill and the Dingley bill, and which
must follow the passage of a worse measure.
Mr. President, I am not unmindful that what I shall say will
not deter the managers of this bill in the Senate in t le east
from their predetermined course, but I deem it my duty to p ace
upon the records of the Senate and of the United J tates the
reasons which ju stify my protest and from which future stu
dents may perhaps find something of value in determining this
question, when they shall consider it with intellectual and moral
integrity and not in a spirit of trade, of barter, or of easy com
pliance with the demand of special interests, whose lobbyists
swarm the corridors of this Capitol.
Mr. President, mere denunciation of a bill, or ot the managers
of the bill, I regard as serving no good purpose unless proof is
offered which shall be convincing to thoughtful and honest men
that the condemnation is thoroughly justified.
In pointing out the injurious effects of what I shall demon
strate to be a monopoly-protecting tariff upon our entire people,
including every class of consumers, every class of producers,
every class of manufacturers or distributers or merchants ex
cept the masters of monopoly, I shall do so dispassionately
with a composed temper and with an earnest desire to offer
reasons, at least, to those now trusted by our people w ith power
J
3252
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE,
why they should not persist in a policy full o f injury and harm
to the Republic.
I shall be compelled in th is discussion to point out the logical
consequences of a monopoly-protecting ta r iff; its effect, its dan
gerous effect, in piling up stupendous w ealth on the one side in
the hands of its favorites, and in causing great wretchedness
and poverty on the other side among the weaker and more de
fenseless classes of our people.
When I point out the unavoidable effect of extreme poverty
as the necessary complement of unlim ited wealth in the hands
of the few, accumulated under the shelter of law, I w ish it
distin ctly understood that the dark picture of human misery
which the truth compels me to portray breathes from me no
spirit of pessimism, because I am fu ll of hope. I recognize the
im m ediate dawn of better things and an early remedy. The
increasing intelligence of our people already begins to under
stand the causes of these conditions and to formulate the
natural and reasonable remedy for their correction. The spirit
of benevolence and o f patriotism which characterizes the great
body of our people and, I rejoice to say, moves a m ultitude of
the beneficiaries of our unw ise system gives promise for an
early correction of the injurious consequences which naturally
follow a prohibitive tariff, w ith its necessary brood of success
ful monopolies, by the reduction of that tariff'; if not now,
through the party in power, then by the unwearied Democracy
that has been faith fu lly pointing out its evils for twenty-five
years. I shall endeavor to point out some of the injurious con
sequences of the tariff-engendered monopolies and their crush
ing effect upon human l i f e ; but in doing so I shall not be under
stood as a pessim ist, because I am precisely the contrary.
OPTIMIST.
J une 15,
when that day comes, no Senator in th is Chamber w ill be so
callous as to mock the pledges made to the people in national
platforms.
I am an optimist, Mr. President, because of the magnificent
growth of our Republic under the blessings of liberty.
From 5,000,000 people in 1S00 w e have over eighty-five
m illions in 1907. From five billions of w ealth in 1800 we have
a hundred and twenty-five billion in 1909. From a weak nation
we have become potentially the greatest nation in the world;
but above all, Mr. President, has been our increase in the means
of intelligence.
Forests are now converted into paper w ith lightning speed.
Volumes innumerable, filled w ith learning upon every subject,
are crowding into the pathway of knowledge; but chief of all
the modern newspapers, filled with learning, wit, and humor,
illustrated w ith splendid descriptions and photographs of every
thing “ in the heavens above, the earth beneath, and the w aters
under the earth,” are thrust into the hands of the wayfaring
man for a price incredibly small, so that he who runs may read
and instantly learn w hat is transpiring in regard to everything
of human interest at home and abroad, so that every citizen may
know a t breakfast every fact transpiring on earth that he cares
to know, from the diplom atic questions of foreign courts to the
wonderful home run of Casey on the Chicago ball grounds,
from the market quotations of London and New York to the
astonishing description of the last wild beast slain on the
eastern coast of Africa by one of our very distinguished fellowcitizens.
W hile it is true that thirty-five thousand m illions of dollars
o f the proceeds of human labor in the United States have passed
into the hands of various corporations, and a very large part
of all of the net proceeds of American labor have been improp
erly acquired by monopoly; and w hile 7,000,000 women have
been driven from out the peaceful shelter of the American home
into commercial rivalry w ith m e n ; and w hile 5,000,000 children
in like manner are being driven under the commercial whip to
sacrifice their youth, in large part, to the demand of M am mon;
and w hile there are m any m illions of men who regard life w ith
great anxiety, constantly in fear of the drastic power of extreme
poverty and lack of employment, still I see th at the American
workmen, in the factories of our land, have exhibited a net
output per capita o f over tw elve hundred dollars, from which
the legitim ate demand on him for the support of an American
fam ily can be met and still leave a large surplus earning.
The American people have shown that they are far more than
abundantly capable of sustaining them selves and making the
m ost substantial contribution to th e w ealth o f the Republic
and of the world and still leave them selves reasonable leisure.
And, finally, Mr. President, I am an optim ist because I believe
that the American people—who love liberty, who believe in selfgovernment, who believe in mercy and in charity as w ell as in
industry and providence—w ill see to it that th is Government is
so conducted by their representatives that in the future there
shall be a m ore equitable distribution of the proceeds of human
labor; that w e shall change the present policy, whose inevitable
tendency is the useless, the vulgar, and insane enrichment of
the few a t the expense of the m isery and sorrow and o f the
physical and spiritual degeneration of m illions o f men, women,
and children who are now submerged by the devices of com
mercialism gone mad.
The bill should not pass,
BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO TH E W ILL OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Mr. President, the American people were promised by both
parties a reduction of the tariff, and had a right to expect
substantial reduction. The representatives of one-half of the
people, assembled at Denver, em phasized this m atter m ost vig
orously in the Democratic platform in the follow ing language:
Mr. President, I am an o p tim ist; because I feel that the
Anglo-Saxon race and the Teutonic blood represented in this
country by m illions of men of the northern races of Europe
and Great B ritain and the adopted sons o f other great nations
in our land have an unquenchable love of liberty, of justice,
and of compassion, and w ill correct every evil of our great
Government; because our forefathers distinguished them selves
by a love of liberty that dared death in every form to establish
it and m aintain it in the bosom o f th is R epu blic; because our im
mediate forefathers not only loved liberty, but they practiced that
form of government which made liberty a working force in the
adm inistration of th is Government from the days when the town
meeting in New England, in M assachusetts, Mr. President, in Con
necticut, and in Rhode Island instructed their representatives
according to the w ill o f a free people. In those good old days
when the R epresentative w a s not a machine-made politician, but
w as a Representative in the highest and best sense—of repre
senting directly the opinions and the commercial interests of the
common people who sent him.
I am an optim ist because of my perfect confidence in the great
body of the American people, whose stability, patriotism, and
common sense w ill control th is country and direct it along sound
paths of good government; because I see in many directions
the gradual restoration o f the right and power of the peo
ple to select their public servants directly, and directly require
them to carry out their w ill. I rejoice to see the establishment
o f the initiative and referendum in Maine and in Oregon and
in other States, a s w ell a s in Oklahoma, and the establishm ent
of the direct primary in so many of our States.
I rejoice to see the people instructing their legislatures in the
selection of Senators, and w h ile I did not receive any report
from the Senator from Michigan, as chairman o f the Committee
on P rivileges and Elections, of the proposed amendment to the
Constitution of the U nited States I had the honor to submit
during the la st Congress for the election of Senators by direct
vote o f the people, I have fe lt justified in being an optimist
because I w as able to point out 24 States in the Union that had
We welcom e th e belated prom ise o f ta riff re fo rm now offered by tlie
requested from their legislative assemblage th is restoration to Republican party. * * *
the people of their ancient right of rule.
This platform declared:
Now, Mr. President, I am an optimist, notwithstanding, the
T he people can n o t safely I n tr u s t th e execution of th is im p o rtan t
hostile attitude of the leaders now in control of the Senate,^be w ork to a p a rty w hich is so d e e p ly o b lig a te d to th e h ig h ly p ro tected
cause already there are 29 States, including Michigan, the State in te re sts as is th e R e p u b lic a n p a rty .
o f the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Privileges
This platform states:
and Elections, in which the election of Senators is controlled by
W e c a l l a tte n tio n to th e sig n ifican t fa c t t h a t th e prom ised relief
th e direct voice of the people.® I t w ill only be a few short years teas p ostp o n ed u n t il a ft e r th e com ing e le c tio n — a n election to succeed
when 46 of the States w ill be controlled in th is m anner; and in w hich t h e R e p u b lic a n p a rty m u st have th e sam e su p p o rt fro m the
b en eficia ries o f th e h igh p ro te c tiv e ta riff as it has a lw a y s h e re to fo re
re c e iv e d fro m th e m ; and to th e f u r th e r fa c t th a t d u rin g y e ars of unin
« Alabama, Arkansas C alifornia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, M ichigan, Missouri,
M ississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North D akota, Ohio, Okla
homa, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, V ir
ginia, W ashington, and W isconsin. Of these California, Nevada, Idaho,
and Michigan came in th is year— 1909.
te r r u p t e d pow er no actio n w h a tev e r h a s been ta k e n by th e R epublican
C ongress to co rre c t th e a d m itte d ly e x istin g ta riff iniq u ities.
This platform further declared:
We fa v o r im m ediate revision of th e ta riff by th e re d u c tio n o f import
duties.
*
*
*
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
The party to which I have the honor to belong has, since
1876, demanded a proper reform of the inequalities, injustices,
and false pretenses of a tariff controlled by selfish interests at
the expense of the American people.
It never has, Mr. President, at any time contemplated so re
ducing the tariff as to injuriously affect any legitimate industry
whatever. On the contrary, while it has pointed vigorously to
the fraud and false pretenses of the monopoly protecting tariff,
it always has been mindful Of the rights of capital legitimately
employed in manufacture, and equally mindful of labor em
ployed in industries established under the shelter of our tariff
system.
In 1SS4 the Democratic national platform said:
coru?t^y industries have come to rely upon legislation for successful
fni a? t?nc,e ’, so th at aQy change of law must be at every step regardf 11® labor and capital thus involved. The process of reform must
tion i ec,te<l in .the execution to this plain dictate of ju stice: all taxaTbo
limited to the requirements of economical government,
ilenritf cessai'y reduction of taxation can and must be effected without
American labor of the ability to compete successfully with
amni* * ° or a n ^ without imposing lower rates of d u ty than will be
10 cover any increased cost of production which may exist in
'sequence of the higher rate of wages prevailing in this country.
k.
The practice of writing these schedules at prohibitive rates
and preventing competition and engendering monopoly has been
nercely condemned by the Democracy as “ robbery of the great
majority for the benefit of the f e w ” (1892). It has demanded a constitutional tariff drawn for the purpose of revenue,
. I151s not condemned the unavoidable incidental protection
on-1 .} any tai'iff for revenue, or for revenue only, unavoidably
U,,,0} i an<^ which w ill alw ays be found sufficient for the incientiii protection of legitim ate industry.
M .!!eJ ' eaSOn why protection AS PRACTICED has been de
l lce<1 as “ r°bbery ” is because such schedules have beei
mm 11 I10t for constitutional revenue purposes, but to shelte
nmrni1*. an,(1 permit monopoly to wrongfully tax the peopL
lei the color of a pretended revenue law.
part,y to which I have the honor to belong, therefor
]i
l We C0' f . the promise of tariff reform offered bv th.
the cos! nVn ^ ’l, 08 ? \ the basis of “ the difference betweei
the cost of production at home and abroad,” for the obviou
ieason that a tariff so drawn would necessarily be a tariff fo
revenue with only such incidental protection as just ce am
common sense requires.
J
e dn<
It w as this kind of tariff law drawn in 1846, with which hofl
parties were well satisfied in 1856. If this a w were now s
drawn, the contention between the two great parties o n t h I I
S Exhibit ni ^ f Sarily cease- tFor Party platforms compare!
of^educlna
th ^ D
ir i? downward.
Kr°a1t parties
(lec]ared
purpos
oi reducing the
tariff
No manner
of the
exnlanatioi
pressedIvilf
of
fh
?
A
^ .substautial trutb that it was the ex
piessed will of the American people making itself felt throne!
both party platforms and through both party leaders that then
should be a substantial reduction of tariff duties
I he Republican platform of 1908 declares “ unequivocally”c n n i Z l S ® ^ 2rd in a Plfltform, and suggests the purpose o:
h5
f° r revision of the tariff by special session o:
tne Congress im m ediately following the inauguration of tin
next President,” and say s:
tninUou‘
^'‘5 ,lG8lsl.a.t.Ion tJle trae Principle of protection is best main
+7.:?ed by the imposition of such duties as w ill equal the difference be
o f production a t home and abroad, together with a Reason
ab le profit to A m e ric a n industries.
The platform also says that it is the Republican policy—
To preserve w ith o u t excessive duties th e secu rity a g a in st foreign
com petition to w hich A m erican m a n u fa c tu re rs, farm ers, and producers
a re entitled , b u t also to m a in ta in th e high sta n d a rd of living of the
w age-workers of th is country, who are th e m ost d ire c t beneficiaries of
th e p rotectiv e system .
Excessive duties are here condemned by the leaders of the Re
publican party, and in 1904 the Republican platform declared:
The measure of protection should alw ays a t h a s t equal the differ
ence in the cost of production a t home and abroad.
Even in the majority report of the House committee, page
2, section 1, they declared:
ab
W hile duties should be p ro tective, they should be a d ju sted as nearly
to represent the difference in cost of production a t home and
IT
VIO LA TES T H E
R E PU B LIC A N P LED G ES.
The rates of the bill submitted by the Finance Committee
average higher than the Dingley bill and are not a reduction
at all.
The chairman of the Committee on Finance ostentatiously sets
forth 379 items on which reductions are made.
3253
These reductions, as wrill appear in the Congressional R ecord
of May 5 and by Exhibit 12, I here submit, are item s of no na
tional importance. Two hundred and seventy-four of these
items involve articles whose imports are less than $25,000, or
severally less than one-thirtieth part of 1 penny gross imports
per capita. The table which I submit gives the items in excess
where the imports of such articles amounted to over $25,000,
and the table discloses the fact that the total imports except
ing lumber w7as extremely small, and that the pretended reduc
tions are of no importance, while the increases are of substantial
importance.
Mr. President, this bill should not passs, because it violates the
pledges of the Republican party and of the Republican leader
during the last campaign. The party platform, I have shown
above, is unequivocal. Its reasonable and natural jnterpretation is plain. The Senator from Indiana on May 25 set forth
at great length the declarations of the President of the United
States, quoting him as pledging the American people—
Genuine and honest revision
*
*
*
su b sta n tia lly a revision down
ward, though th e re w ill probably be a few exceptions
As delivered by the President September 24, 1908.
No wonder the Republican Senator from Minnesota [Mr. N el
so n ] demands to know7 what this special session w as called for,
if it was merely to rewrite the Dingley bill.
No wonder the Republican Senators from Iowa, Indiana,
Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and other States vehe
m ently protest against this betrayal of the party pledge. The
Senator from Massachusetts will explain in vain to the Ameri
can people that it was not the purpose of the party to have a
substantial revision dowmward, as the President said, September
24, 1908, at Milwaukee.
. . . .
The President in his inaugural address reiterated his con
struction of the purposes of the party, as was strongly pointed
out by the Senator from Indiana, and stated in the most positive
m anner:
i t w im n p rn tlv p lv npcessarv, therefore, th a t a ta riff bill be draw n in
good f a it T ln ^ accordance w ith promises made before th e election by th e
p a rty in power.
And on December 17 last the President is quoted as having
said before the Ohio Society:
„ii le tte r th a t the new hill should fa il, unless
we have .an h o n ls t and thorough revision on th e basis laid dow n and
the principles outlined in the p a rty platform .
The Republican platform declared in 1904 for a tariff law
merely “ equal to the difference in the cost of production at
home and abroad,” and in 1908 likewise declared or
Such duties a s w ill equal the difference betw een th e cost of produc
tion a t home a nd abroad.
And yet the leaders of that party, neither in the House nor
in the Senate, have concerned themselves to compile the d if
ference in the cost of production at home and abroad,” although
they have submitted many volumes of thousands of pages of
confused miscellany, a small portion under oath, a large portion
not under oath, with no safeguard whatever, and coming from
selfish interests seeking the privilege of monopoly over the
American people.
When I, as a Senator of the United States, representing the
people of the United States, from Maine to California, and en
titled by the honor and dignity of my position to a proper an
swer, demand to know “ why the difference in the cost of pro
duction at home and abroad” had not been compiled as a basis
for the drafting of this statute, the Senator from New Hamp
shire rises in his place and solemnly advises me that my inquiry
is “ absurd.” [Turning to the Senator from New Hampshire,
Mr. Gallinger.] H e will find his remarks on page 2134 ot the
Congressional R ecord.
The suggestion is made by other Republican leaders that the
information can not be obtained, and wdien I myself oner over
446 items which had been compiled ten years ago by Carroll D.
Wright, Commissioner of Labor, they show themselves ac
quainted with the matter, confess that this lnfoimation can be
obtained, and plead that the report is not up to date.
The Senator from Rhode Island, chairman of the Committee
on Finance, rises in his place and, with a fine sense of humor
excited by my request and inquiry why the difference in cost of
production had not been compiled, advises me w ith amused satire
that he will have a clerk compile for me a list of publications
relating to the tariff, but will be uuable to furnish me w ith the
intelligence to digest them.
I shall not question the intelligence of the chairman of the
Committee on Finance, nor shall I reply to him in kind. I
appeal from him to the American people, who w ill not hold him
J
3254
/
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
/g u ilt le s s for his callous and reprehensible conduct in this
matter.
Mr. President, I keenly regret .to feel impelled to comment in
this manner upon the conduct of public business in the Senate.
Not only has the chairman of the Committee on Finance not
furnished the Senate “ the difference in the cost of production
at home and abroad; ” not only has he not made a proper re
port to the Senate in regard to this m atter; not only has he
replied w ith satirical indifference to a respectful demand for
proper information which he w as charged with the duty of ob
taining, but he has withheld information upon this point ob
tained by our Department of State, through the German Gov
ernment, for the express purpose of our enlightenment. He has
done, Mr. President, what is infinitely more reprehensible; he
has refused to the Senator of Virginia and to the other Demo
cratic members of the Senate Finance Committee the privilege
of having the same information as he him self has enjoyed by
virtue of being an officer of this b od y; and when, Mr. President,
his attention is called to this unjust and unconstitutional con
duct, he justifies it by quoting from an evil precedent of Demo
cratic origin and seemed to think he had fully answered for
this breach of duty.
Mr. President, a bad Democratic precedent is no more re
spectable to me than a bad precedent from any other source.
The conduct of the chairman of the Committee on Finance in
holding secret meetings w ith regard to this public matter and
in gh in g repeated confidential audiences to the agents of mo
nopoly, whose advice is influencing the various paragraphs of
this bill in their own interests against the interests of the Amer
ican people, is a bad precedent either to set or to follow, and puts
the management of the Senate of the United States under the
suspicion of a want of frankness and of a want of sincerity in
drawing these schedules, i t is of the highest national im
portance that the Senate of the United States and every Member
of it should not only be above suspicion, but, as far as possible,
beyond danger of being deceived or misled.
This evil precedent has already borne bad fruit, and the chair
man of the Committee on Finance has been induced to put into
this bill and to retain in this bill many so-called “ jokers ”—
that is, words and phrases, innocent in appearance, with farreaching consequences, favorable to the beneficiary and unfavor
able to the people. These devices have already been pointed out
on the floor, and I shall not pause to enumerate them. No court
of justice, and no high official of government charged with a
sacred trust should permit him self to conduct “ star-chamber
proceedings, because it is alm ost sure to bring upon him self the
odium of suspicion and public hostility as a Member of the
United States Senate.
I enter my emphatic protest against this conduct of the public
business as a precedent. It should not be permitted to stand
as a precedent.
The poor excuse that the Democratic Members were lately
furnished w ith the assistance o f two statisticians does not in
the least degree excuse this grossly improper method of conduct
ing the public business. These experts were not furnished until
it w as too late to use their services advantageously for the
proper digest and amendment o f th is bill.
For over a year the Republican Members have given it out
that they were preparing this bill, and yet w ith all this time
they have never yet furnished either the House or Senate with
“ the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad ”
of the item s in the paragraphs of the Dingley bill, which they
were honor bound to do by the platform of 1904 and by the plat
form of 1908, which required the redrawing of these paragraphs
on this precise basis.
They can furnish no explanation of this astonishing and
shocking neglect of duty, except perhaps the explanation offered
by the Senator from South Carolina, who humorously apolo
gized for them—
That they could not be expected to furnish a rope w ith which to hang
themselves.
J une 15
gested and undigestible matter, as well calculated to confuse
the mind of an intelligent and laborious legislator as the huge
volumes of testimony bundled before the petit jury in the crim
inal-rich cases, for the purpose of befogging the issue and as
suring a miscarriage of justice.
In answer to my resolute demand for this information, the
managers of the Senate, presenting and sustaining this bill”
undertook to ridicule and discourage the inquiry. The chair
man of the Committee on Finance [Mr. A l d r ic h ] indulges in
satire, evasion, and suggests a lack of intelligence in the inquiry.
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. G a l l in g e r ] declares
the inquiry absurd. The Senator from Montana [Mr. C arter ]
suggests that Senators can not expect to be fed w ith an intel
lectual spoon, and so forth. And this is the utterly contemptible
and pusillanimous manner in which party pledges are redeemed.
This is the answer made to a respectful inquiry, why this infor
mation is not furnished as to “ the difference in the cost of pro
duction at home and abroad,” and why this bill is not written
in the light of this evidence, as the party pledged itself to do to
the American people.
Mr. President, the Republican leaders in charge of this bill
occupy a position absolutely and utterly indefensible. They
have boldly and openly violated the pledges of the party and
have sacrificed the interests of the American people to benefit
those selfish interests which are using these high schedules for
the purpose of sheltering monopoly.
Mr. President, I can not help but believe that the Republican
leaders, acting through the subtle influence of machine politics,
have been led into a support of these high schedules without
fully realizing that they are violating their party pledges, which
confines them to the difference of the cost of production at home
and abroad, but having made the error, defend it from false
pride of opinion.
They have been, not perhaps quite hypnotized, but over
whelmed with the “ power of suggestion ” enveloping them and
creating the atmosphere and controlling environment established
by a swarm of attorneys, special pleaders, and fascinating rep
resentatives of the high-tariff beneficiaries.
They seem to have entirely lost sight of the principle of pro
tection taught by their forefathers and defended by their own
platform. This bill ought not to pass
B EC A U SE IT V IO LA TES T H E TR U E P R IN C IP L E O F L E G IT IM A T E PRO T E C T IO N
W H IC H DOES NOT EN G EN D ER OR D EFEN D M ONOPOLY.
This bill ought not to pass, because it violates the principle
of protection from beginning to end.
Mr. President, if there is one thing that ought to be more
thoroughly understood than another in this country it is—
The principle of legitim ate protection.
There is not the slightest doubt about what it means from the
days of Alexander Hamilton to this good day. The meaning of
protection is absolutely clear to all students of economy, and
that is a duty under a constitutional revenue tariff, so levied
as to equal “ the difference in cost of production at home and
abroad,” and thus enable the American manufacturer to meet
cm equal term s the com petition of the foreign m anufacturer,
who enjoys cheaper labor or more favorable conditions, but
not to establish monopoly by prohibitive duties.
Alexander Hamilton, in his famous report on the encourage
ment of manufacturers, gives the reasons for this policy, it
was accepted by Washington, by Jefferson, by Madison, by
Andrew Jackson, and various Democratic leaders down to the
days of Samuel J. Tilden and Grover Cleveland, and has not
been denied, as far as I am informed, by any great Democratic
leader.
The Democratic platform o f 1884 vigorously declared that in
reducing the tariff the reduction—
Must be effected w ithout depriving American labor of the ability to
compete successfully w ith foreign labor, and w ithout imposing lower
rates of duty than w ill be ample to cover any increased cost of produc
tion which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages pre
vailing in this country.
Is it possible, Mr. President, that men of nobility and chth^And the Republican platform o f 1904 s a y s :
acter, that^ Senators trusted by the people with such power,
have knowingly refused to compile “ the difference in the cost
The measure of protection should always, at least, equal the differ
of production at home and abroad ” on the items of the Dingley ence in the cost of production at home and abroad.
bill for our present guidance because they intended to break
And this doctrine is repeated again in the tariff of 1908 in the
faith w ith the American people and did not dare to make the
truth m anifest by compiling this damning evidence of their following w o rd s:
The true principle of protection is best maintained by the imposition
betrayal of their party pledges?
such duties as w ill equal the difference between the c ost of produc
Whatever the purpose, Mr. President, the responsible authori of
tion a t home and abroad.
ties of the Senate in charge of this bill have furnished every
The Republican platform of 1908, however, adds the w o rd s:/
thing else except the evidence in point, and have obscured the
issues both in the Senate and House by many volumes of undi
Together w ith a reasonable profit to American industries.
jr
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
(c) H as lowered purchasing power of wages.
This latter is not the doctrine of protection. It is the political
wedge of monopoly. It Is the latest political device of those
( d) H as established monopoly, and, consequently,
1. H as prevented or obstructed the organization of labor.
who have been fraudulently building up monopoly under color
of the doctrine of protection.
2. Restricted output and diminished demand for labor.
3. H as substituted foreign pauper labor for American labor.
The Democrats have sincerely and justly declared “ Repub
4. Has required ruinous hours.
lican protection ” a fraud! and the shelter of monopoly. The
5. Subjected labor to bad housing, bad water, insanitary con
Republicans have unjustly and deceitfully declared the Demo
cratic tariff for revenue to be free trade.
ditions.
6. H as increased mortality of labor.
I shall undertake, Mr. President, to show that the tariff under
7. H as destroyed political liberty of its labor in large
the doctrine for revenue would be three times as high as a tariff
drawn purely for purposes of protection under the principles measure.
8. H as impaired labor's commercial independence.
laid down in the Republican platform of equaling the difference
9. H as appropriated all the net proceeds of labor and accumu
hi the cost of production at home and abroad, if it were honestly
drawn.
lated it in the hands of the few.
The Democratic doctrine of a tariff for revenue is not free
ON COMMERCE.
trade or anything which approximates it. It is a tariff high
(a ) H as weakened our imports and exports.
enough to abundantly afford every protection to any American
(ft) H as diminished the output of smaller factories, depend
industry which it has an honest right to ask, as I shall imme
diately show.
ing for material on monopolies.
(c) Has raised prices in United States o0 per cent above the
. r^!ie dem ocratic doctrine has been the correct one; that is, a
ariff as low as economical government w ill permit, and not so prices abroad, thus diminishing consumption.
1. This means a ruinous tax on the man or woman^ w ith
l°'v.,.i,ls to inJ'ure any legitim ate industry established under our
tariff system, contending that a tariff for revenue properly drawn Axed income. A man with income of $1,500 has one-third of
income
conAscated by monopolies’ high prices.
will meet by incidental protection every legitimate demand.
This affects all men w ith fixed income. The clerk, the serv
I shall not pause to discuss the difference between the two
parties. I shall content myself with showing that this bill does ant, the government employee, the pensioner, the man receiving
not conform to the principle of legitim ate protection, absolute or Axed return from investment, yields one-third or it all to
incidental, laid down by either party, but under the pretense of monopoly.
ON d i s t r i b u t i o n o f w e a l t h .
protecting American labor and American capital legitimately
employed it is written in such a manner as to utterly ignore the
1. It has piled up enormous wealth in few hands, which now
principles of protection as taught by the Republicans themselves. grows w ith accumulating force, absorbing all natural oppor
J.hi;s will be perfectly obvious to any man who w ill take the tunities of life. The oil Aelds, coal, ore, timber, transportation,
schedules submitted under the head of “ Estimated revenues of and transmission services, municipal franchises, real estate,
this bill,” of April 12, 1909, showing the rates proposed by this water powers, w ith the inevitable result, i not checked, of
present bill and the comparison of the rates with the Dingley bill. commercial mastery and commercial slave y * i destiuction
t h e d if f e r e n c e in t h e c o s t o f p r o d u c t io n at h o m e and abroad .
o f political independence.
, ,. c,
...
2. It has corrupted our public life, oot elections our cities,
f ho cost of production depends on m aterials and labor.
M aterials are as cheap in the markets of the world to the our courts, legislatures, and executive officers, and our private
American as to the European, except as we tax import o f raw pitizpn
first, relative labor cost.
material by our own statute. Our policy, w ith few exceptions
is to admit raw material free, so that the question of the rel
Mr. President, I wish to point out the*relatl™ labor cost, be
ative cost of materials is of very small relative importance.
Our manufacturers get free raw materials for their export cause in considering this matter as a student, I have faithfully
undertaken to do so. What I shall say w ill be as a student of
business by refund of duties paid.
Many m aterials are cheaper in the United States than thev this matter and not as a mere controversialist and I defy
~ a d , exceI)t where controlled by our unrestrained monop- the Committee on Finance to challenge the accuracy of the
Azures which T submit to the Senate—the laboi cost of m aterial
g f i r ? t g r e a t S r that ought to be considered by the Sen
1
LABOR COST.
«
Labor cost in wages i n t h e p r o t e c t e d i n d u s t r i e s , m e a s u r e d b y ate. Idle percentage which labor 1 * ^ *
o th m Exhibit
e f f ic ie n c y and t h e p u r c h a s i n g p o w e r o f w a g e s paid to labor is shown by our statistical tables, is cartful y e
approximately the same in the United States as in Europe ’ex 1, taken from volumes 7-10 on manufactures of our federal
census
cept where the American wage-earner is highly organized. ’
It is true that the Census Bureau neglected to work out the
1. I shall undertake to show that this is true bv showing that
percentages of labor cost, but that is a ma
m atical problem
the money paid American labor i n p r o t e c t e d i n d u s t r i e s is ap easy
of solution, to which I have given industrious attention.
proximately on an average but little more than that paid in I call the attention of the Senate to these percentages, which
Europe,
are of vital importance if this bill is to be v\ u ten in a spirit
2. That the American workman is t w i c e a s e f f ic ie n t, and be of integrity. From this table it appears that labor s share of
cause of efficiency is entitled to tw ice the wage of the European the gross product in the food industries was 5 7 per cent; in
workman, and that the difference in labor cost compared to the textiles, 19.5 per cen t; in iron and steel, 22.10 per c en t, lumber,
'value of the product is in favor of the American manufacturer. 27.4 per cent; leather industries, 16.o pei cen t, in paper and
3. I shall undertake to show that $150 of wages in the printing, 21.6 per cent; in liquors and beverage.., 8.9 pei cent;
United States buys only w hat a hundred dollars buys in Europe in chemicals and allied products, 8 per cen t; clay, g ass, and
in manufactured goods, and for this reason the American man stone products, 37.1 per cen t; in metals and metal products,
ufacturer does not pay his labor as much in proportion to work 12.7 per cent; tobacco products, 18.9 per cent; for vehicles for
done as the European manufacturer.
land transportation, 34.4 per cen t; in shipbuilding, 35.2 per c e n t;
4. I shall undertake to show, Anally, that the total percentage in miscellaneous industries, 19.9 per cent.
of wages to the gross product of all American manufacturers
The average of wages paid to labor, compared with the gross
is only 17.8 per cent of the gross value of the product, and, product in the 14 great industries, therefore, is only 19. < per
therefore, that the difference in the cost of production in the cent of the gross product. And yet the leaders bring in this
United States and abroad must be on an average less than this bill with the average three times as high as the total labor cost,
percentage. If labor abroad cost half as much as in the United and ask us, representing the people of the United States, to
States, as the high protectionists pretend, then the difference in accept it without a murmur and without a protest. They have
Cost of production necessary to be provided for by a purely pro neglected to point out the difference of the cost of production
tective tariff would be less than the average of 10 per cent, at home and abroad. I have undertaken to do so, and to put
while a revenue tariff would be between 30 and 40 per cent.
upon the records of the Senate a lasting memorial of what this
I shall undertake to show the bad effect of a prohibitive cost is, that they shall not leave this matter without explana
tariff on wages, on commerce, on distribution of wealth, and in tion to the people of the United States. It shall be recorded
corrupting of public and private life.
and it is recorded by the tables which I shall immediately sub
3. Effect of prohibitive tariff.
mit.
ON W AGES.
Mr. President, before I submit these tables, however, I wish
(a ) Has lowered wages relative to product.
to call attention to the report of Carroll D. Wright. I have sug
(It) H as lowered wages in protected industries compared to gested heretofore to the managers of this bill that they m ight
consult the tables of Carroll D. Wright w ith advantage He
unprotected industries.
3256
/
CONGRESSIONAL KECOED— SEN A TE
offers 446 different articles, w ith the total labor cost measured made a t a labor cost of 5.44 per cent of the finished product
to the cent in each and every one of them, taking this informa (S. Doc. 20, 55th Cong., 3d sess., p. S4) ; that woolen yarn
tion from the United States, from Germany, from Belgium, from No. 2 could be made w ith a labor cost of 4.74 per cent of the
England, and he verifies in these particular instances the ac finished product; that woolen yarn No. 3 could be made for
7.11 per cent of the finished product; that woolen yarn No. 4
curacy of our general tables taken from the Census Bureau.
Obviously, the difference in the percentage which the wages could be made for 6.49 per cent of the finished product; that
of labor abroad would bear to m anufactured products in like woolen yarn No. 5 could be made at a cost of 7.71 per cent of
great industries w ill be som ewhat sim ilar to the percentage in the finished product; that woolen yarn No. 6 could be made at
th is country. Wages are som ewhat cheaper abroad in the pro a labor cost of 9.29 per cent o f the finished product; and
tected industries than they are in this country, and if the aver including the entire cost of labor in transform ation m aterials,
age wage w as only h alf abroad w hat it is at home, the differ which are shown in No. 426, that woolen cloth in the United
ence in the cost of w ages at home and abroad would not exceed States, 55 inches wide, 24 ounces to the yard, can be made at a
10 per cent ad valorem on the gross products o f labor in all of labor cost of 16.44 per cent of the finished product.
B ut the Committee on Finance approve a rate of 143 per cent
our 14 great groups of manufacturing industries; but when it
is remembered that American labor is twice as productive in on w'ooleu yarn.
Mr. President, if I should point out all of such inequalities
th is country as it is abroad, even this 10 per cent disappears.
N otw ithstanding th is im portant and vital fact, the representa between the cost o f production at home and abroad and the
tives of high protection continually declaim that a 60 per cent rates fixed by this bill, w ith its 4,000 items, it would require
tariff is alm ost solely and exclusively in the interest of the a volume and many days of time. I therefore content m yself
American laborer and for th e protection of the American manu w ith a complete demonstration of the general character of this
facturer from bankruptcy.
bill in its indifference to the principles of protection as laid
down in the Republican platform, and w ill then proceed with
T H E L O W E S W A GES I N E U R O P E O F F S E T BY GREATER E F F IC IE N C Y O F A M E R I
other considerations.
CAN LABOR.
I take a few item s from Carroll D. W right’s report, giving the
Jam es G. B laine once said:
cost of labor in transform ing wool into blankets in the United
T hat
actual„ labor cost o f the American product is less because States, compiled by him under the instructions of the Senate ten
tn6 effectiveness o f American labor was superior to th at of the working- years ago, and of woolen cloth.
man of any other nation on earth.
H e explains that this work w as obtained directly from the
Prof. W illiam G. Clark, indorsed as an authority by the Sen manufacturers by the Departm ent of Labor, using “ experts
ator from New Ham pshire [Mr. G a l l in g e b ] , in the Engineering from the department, detailed for that purpose.”
M agazine for May, 1904, subm its a table, which he bases on
H e shows the total cost of labor in blankets, cloth, and woolen
official data, showing the com parative productivity of American yarns to be from 5 per cent to 30 per cent.
labor for the year 1900, as follow s, to w i t :
American, average annual o utput___
__________$2, 450
Canadian, average annual o u tp u t___ ZZZZZZZZ~ZZZZZZ~- _____ 1, 455
A ustralian, average annual o u tp u t____
__~
______
900
French, average annual o u t p u t____ ~Z~ZZZ-Z
______________
640
England, average annual o u tp u t_ _ ___~
I _____________
556
~
" _________
460
German, average annual o u tp u t___I I
/
J une 15
I do not assert that these figures are strictly correct, but be
lieve it w ill be generally conceded that the American workman
has at least tw ice the efficiency of the European workman, be
cause of the use of superior machinery, modern appliances, and
more effective invention.
P E R C E N T O F W A GES TO V A L U E O F PR O D U C T NOT C O N SID ER ED IN
R A TES O F P E N D IN G B IL L .
T A R IF F
The percentage which labor receives upon the gross product in
the textiles industry, for example, as compiled by our own census
on m anufactures, is only 19.5 per c e n t; and yet when the woolen
schedule, for example, is examined, the present bill puts yarn, 143
per cent (par. 373) ; knit fabrics, 141 per cent (par. 374) ; plushes
and other pile fabrics, 141 per c e n t; wool advanced in any man
ner beyond scouring, 140 per c e n t; woolen cloths or worsted, 134
per cent (par. 374) ; blankets, 107 per cent; flannels for under
wear, 143 per cent; dress goods, coat linings, and so forth, 105
per cent (par. 376) ; felts, not woven, 95 per cent; wearing ap
parel, clothes, dolman, jackets, ulsters, and so forth, for ladies
and children, 80 per c e n t; h ats o f wool, 92 per c e n t; shawls, 92
per cent; woolen carpets, 114 per cent (par. 389).
Grossly violating the principle of protection, even from the
Republican standpoint, and even in cotton cloth, which is par
ticularly needed by our poorest people, cotton carpets are taxed
50 per cent (par. 389) ; cotton cloth 42 per cent, and as high as
61 per cent for different kinds o f cotton c lo th ; cotton handker
chiefs, 55 per c e n t; cotton sleeve linings, 58 per cent.
Mr. President, the cost of labor in transforming wool and
cotton into cloth is small. It does not exceed an average o f 25
per cent, and in England it is slightly more than in the United
States, because the labor there is not so efficient a s in the
United States; and the difference in the cost of production at
home and abroad a s far as the labor cost in cotton and woolen
cloth is concerned is alm ost a negligible quantity.
It w ill not do, Mr. President, to attem pt to deceive anyone
by pretending that the difference in cost of production of item s
on this bill at home and abroad is not available, or that it
would take years to compile it, as the managers o f this bill have
asserted on the floor of the Senate during this debate. It is
available, and it has been collected on many sample products.
I had the honor to subm it to the Senate, during the present
session, the report of Carroll D. W right, Commissioner o f Labor,
of 1898, who carefully exam ined into th is question o f costs, giv
ing the precise amounts of costs in 446 instances. And in re
gal'd to woolen goods he shows that No. 1 woolen yarn can be
[From report of Carroll D. W right, Commissioner of Labor, 1898, by
experts on cost, in answ er to Senate resolution.]
W oolen goods.
No. 390.— B la n k ets: United S ta te s; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
W h ite; best grade; all w ool; warp, 16 c u t; filling, 10 c u t; 46 threads
of warp and 38 picks of filling per inch ; size, 72x80 inches ; w eight, 6
pounds.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
$0.145
.787
15.56
84.44
.932
100.00
No. 391.— B la n k ets: U nited S ta te s; 1897 ; unit, 1 pound.
W hite ; navy ; all w o o l; warp, 7 i c u t ; filling, 6J c u t ; 24 threads of
warp and 24 picks of filling per in c h ; size, 58x78 in c h e s ; weight, 3 j
pounds.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
SO.0978
.5422
15.28
84.72
.6400
100.00
No. 392.— B lan kets: U nited S ta te s; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
W h ite ; medium g r a d e ; all w o o l; same general description as prod
uct No. 390, but made of cheaper quality wool.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
80.13
.57
18.67
81.43
.70
100.00
No. 393.— B lan kets: United S ta tes; 1897 ; unit, 1 pound.
All w ool; warp, 11 c u t; filling, 9 c u t; 2 3 | threads of warp and 27
picks of filling per in c h ; size, 58x76 in c h e s ; w eight, 2 pounds.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
80.1417
.3096
31.40
68.60
.4513
100.00
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
09.
3257
Woolen goods— Continued.
No. 394.— B lanl;ets: United S tates; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
White ; best g ra d e; cotton warp and wool filling ; warp, No. 16 ; fillingv io cu t; 52 threads of warp and 42 picks of filling per inch; size.
60x72 in ch es; weight, 0 pounds.
Woolen goods— Continued.
No. 402.— B lankets: United States; 1897 ; unit, 1 pound.
H orse; low grad e; mixed wool and cotton ; warp and filling, both
4 -c u t; 20 threads of warp and 20 picks of filling per in c h ; size, 84x90
inches ; weight, 7 pounds.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor...................
$0,125
.668
15.76
84.24
.793
100.00
N°. o9.7.—B lankets: United Sta tes; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
W hite; mixed cotton and w ool; warp, 10 c u t; filling, 10 cut; 36
tnreads of warp and 36 picks of filling per in c h ; size, 60x72 in ch es;
weight, 5 pounds.
Cost of labor in transforming materials....... ---........................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor..................
$0.135
.673
16.71
83.29
.808
100.00
N°Wh?f2‘— b la n k e ts: United S ta tes; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
jot- ” frit? > medium grade; all w ool; same general description as product
•
but made of cheaper quality wool.
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials.......--•.......................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor.................
Total cost.......
-----------------------
18.57
81.43
.70
100.00
100.00
$0.0714
.2209
24.43
75.57
.2923
100.00
No. 404.— B lankets: B elgium ; 1897 ; unit, 1 pound.
White ; all w o o l; medium quality.
/
SO. 13
.57
.1714
Amount. Per cent
of total.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
°{ la-bor in transforming m aterials.....................................
ost ot materials and all other items except labor................
32.09
67.91
No. 403.— B lankets: United States; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
Horse; blue; cotton warp and wool filling; warp, No. 10; filling,
4 -c u t; 324 threads of warp and 48 picks of filling per inch ; size, 84x90
inches ; weight, 7 pounds.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials......................................
eost of materials and all other items except labor.................
$0.0550
.1164
Cost of materials and all other items except labor.................
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
$0.0525
.2977
14.99
85.01
.3502
100.00
~Plankct8: United S ta tes; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
Dicks
cu t; 23
3 threads
o f warp and 27
picks of'
of tilling per inch ; sizefillin«58x70 9inches
; weight,
2 pounds.
No. 405.— Cloth: United States; March, 1898; unit, 1 yard.
B eaver; 54 inches w ide; weight 29 ounces per jmid . w aip yain, No.
16 colored cotton; w eft yarn, s of 2 i run and 5 of 1 tun shoddy, So
ends of warp and 62 picks of weft per men.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all other items except labor
Total cost............
*0.1417
.3096
31.40
68.60
.4513
100.00
Cost of materials and all other items except labor.................
$0.210
6.11
28.20
71.80
.851
100.00
^ ■ ^ ■ — BJankcts: United S ta tes; 1897; unit, 1 nound
W hite; best grade; cotton warp and wool filling^ warp No 1 6; fillpnV79°i ° llt ’ ° 2 t !lr.eads of warp and 42 picks of filling per in ch ; size,
60x72 in c h e s; weight, 5 pounds.
yard,
No. 406.— C loth: United S tates; March, 1898; unit,
Cassim ere; 54 inches w ide; weight, 20J ounces per yard ; w irp yarn,
21 run; w eft yarn, 2 | run; 50 ends of warp and 36 picks of w eft per
inch.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
cent
Amount, Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials ...
Cost of materials and all ottier items except labor.
Total cost..........................
—
$0,125
.668
.793
15.76
84.24
Cost of labor in transforming materials....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor...................
100.00
No. 400.— B lankets: United S ta tes; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
fh ;!2 r,s e : , nlediun‘
,aI1 w® °0 watP and filling, both 5-cut; 22
w e ig h t 7 f " :lld an<1 22 P CtS ° f fllling per inch: size> 31x99 inches;
Total cost..........................................
0
SO. 0850
.3607
19.07
80.93
.4457
100.00
No. 401.— B lankets: United S ta tes; 1897; unit, 1 pound.
Horse: plaid; all w ool; warp and filling, both 4J-cut; 21 i threads of
warp and 17 picks of filling per Inch ; size, 78x80 Inches; weight, 5
pounds.
SO.1000
.3669
21.42
78.58
.4669
100.00
.84
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of materials and all other items except labor.................
80.2100
. 6725
23.80
76.20
.8825
100.00
No. 408.— C loth: Uaited S tates; 1897 ; unit, ly a r d .
C assim ere; 54 inches w ide; weight, 26 ounces pei yard , warp yarn,
4-run; w eft yarn, 5-run ; 75 ends of warp and o4 picks of w eft per
inch.
Amount. Percent
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials.....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor.................
23.81
76.19
100.00
No. 407.— C loth: United S tates; March, 1898 ; unit 1 yard.
C assim ere; 54 inches wide ; weight. 22 ounces per v a n
) • . ’
2 run ; w eft yarn, 2 i run ; 50 ends of warp and 06 picks of filling per
inch.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor................
$0.20
.64
cent
Amount. Fer
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials......................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor...................
Total cost..........................................................................
$0.3654
.9252
1.2906 I
28.31
71.69
100.00
3258
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
J une 15,
W oolen goods— Continued.
No. 409.— C lo th : U nited State3 ; 1897 ; unit 1 yard
C asaim ere; 54 inches w id e ; w eight, 20 ounces per y a r d ; warp yarn,
4 -r u n ; w eft yarn, 5 -r u n ; 60 ends of warp and 52 picks of w eft per
inch.
W oolen goods— Continued.
No. 416.— C loth: United States ; November, 1897; unit, 1 yard.
K e r s e y ; 55 inches w ide; w eight, 27 ounces per yard; warp yarn, 4
run; w eft yarn, 4.1-run face and 2-run back; 76 ends of warp and 60
picks of w eft per inch.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials.
Cost of materials and all other items except i»hor
Total cost.........................................
{0.2801
.7172
28.09
71.91
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials.....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor..................
SO. 38
.81
31.93
68.07
.9073
100.00
Total cost..................................................................................
1.19
100.00
No. 410.— C loth: United States ; 18 9 7 ; un it 1 yard.
C assim ere; 55 inches wide ; w eight, 22 ounces per yard; 44-run yarn,
single, double, and tw isted, is used in both warp and w e f t ; 38 ends of
warp and 38 picks o f w eft per inch.
No. 417.— C loth: U nited States ; November, 1897 ; unit, 1 yard.
K e r s e y ; piece dyed ; 55- Inches w id e ; w eight, 32 ounces per yhrd ;
warp yam , § of 7 run and J of 23 r u n ; w eft yarn, 3 of 5 run and & of
24 r u n ; 88 ends o f warp and 66 picks of w eft per inch.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all otlier items except iRbor
Total cost......................
*0.2163
1.0337
17.30
82.70
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials.....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor..................
80.4202
1.4498
22.47
77.53
1.2500
100.00
Total cost..................................................................................
1.8700
100.00
v.tate* ; November, 1 897; unit, 1 yard.
C h evio t, 56 inches w id e; w eight, 32 ounces per yard; warp yarn,
2-ply No. 24 worsted face and 21-run w ool; back w eft yarn, 23-run
face and 2-run b a ck ; 86 ends o f warp and 60 picks o f w eft per inch.
No. 418.— C loth: U nited States ; 1897 ; unit, 1 yard.
K e r s e y ; one-third sh od d y; 56 inches w id e ; w eight, 28 ounces per
yard; warp yarn, 20 ends of 3J run and 20 ends of 14 run per in c h ;
w eft yarn, 2 r u n ; 40 ends of warp and 40 picks o f w e ft per inch.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all other items except labor ’ "
Total co st.........................
80.42
1.08
28.00
72.00
1.50
100.00
m . 4 1 2 . - C l o t h : U nited States ; November, 1897, unit, 1 yard.
C h evio t; 55 inches w id e; w eight, 28 ounces per yard; U -run yarn
used in both warp and w e ft; 33 ends o f warp and 32 picks of w eft
per inch.
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials.....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor..................
Total c o st.........................................................
No. 419.— C loth: United
K e r s e y ; half shoddy ;
per y a r d ; warp yarn, |
54 ends of warp and 40
Total cost...................................
*0.22
.76
22.45
77.55
.98
100.00
25.09
74.91
1.148
100.00
S ta te s; November, 1897 ; unit, 1 yard.
piece dyed ; 55 inches wide ; w eight, 32 ounces
of 3 run and J of 1 run ; w eft yarn, 21 run ;
picks of w eft per inch.
Per cent
Amount. of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all other items except, l o w
80.288
.860
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials.....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor..................
80.2388
.6112
28.09
71.91
.8500
100.00
No. 413.— C loth: U nited S ta te s; 1 8 9 7 ; un it 1 yard.
C h evio t; half shoddy; 56 inches w id e; w eight, 22 ounces per yard;
li-r u n yarn is used in both warp and w e ft; 28 ends of warp and 26
ends o f w eft per inch.
*
No. 420.— C loth: United States ; November, 1897 ; unit, 1 yard.
F rie ze; 55 inches w id e; w eight, 32 ounces per yard; warp yarn, 3J
ru n ; w eft yarn, 14 run; 44 ends of warp and 44 picks of w eft per
inch.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials.
Cost of materials and all other items except lnhnr
Total c o st.............................................
*0.15
.38
28.30
71.70
.53
100.00
Cost of labor in transforming materials.......................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor....................
80.26
.76
25.49
74.51
1.02
100.00
No. 414.— C7o<A; U nited States ; November, 1897 ; unit, 1 yard.
C h evio t; piece d y e d ; 55 inches w id e ; w eight, 20 ounces per y a r d ; 2
threads of 33 runs each, doubled and tw isted, used in both warp and
w e f t ; 40 ends of warp and 30 picks o f w eft per inch.
No. 421.— C loth; U nited S ta te s; 1897; unit, 1 yard.
M elton ; 54 inches w id e; w eight, 28 ounces per yard ; warp yarn, 3
r u n ; w eft yarn, 31 r u n ; 58 ends of warp and 54 picks of w eft per
inch.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all other items except labor
Total cost........................
No. 415.— C loth: U nited
K e r s e y ; bigh grade;
ounces per yard ; 44-run
of warp and 48 picks of
22.51
77.49
.7500
100^00
Cost of labor In transforming materials.......................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor...................
80.2549
.7381
25.67
74.33
.9930
100.00
States ; 1897 ; unit, 1 yard.
finely finished; 55 inches w id e; weight, 20
yarn is used in both warp and w e f t ; 48 ends
w eft per inch.
No. 422.— C loth: United States ; November, 1897 ; unit, 1 yard.
T h ib e t; 55 inches w id e; weight, 23 ounces per yard; 34 run yarn
used in both warp and w e f t ; 95 ends of warp and 4 6 picks of w eft
per inch.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials.....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor..................
*0.1688
.5812
SO. 54
1.21
30.86
69.14
1.75
100.00
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials.....................................
Cost of materials and all other items except lab or..................
80.32
.80
28.57
71.43
1.12
100.00
1909
CONGKESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
"Woolen goods— Continued.
— Cloth: United States ; November, 1897 ; unit, 1 yard.
w«irt
» ’ piece
dy e d ! 33 inches
w ide; weight,
22
ounces ,per ^y a. r.d ’;
"C l 1 1J VJ1 r n
r» m in • n r o f f v n i m
I X n ,i n . A
-J..
a _____
Woo7eit goods— Continued.
No. 430.— Woolen yarn : United S ta te s; 1897-98 ; unit, 1 pound.
No. 1 yarn.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
fY»c*
-----;
. * m iu M u u im ig m a t e r ia ls .....................
t of materials and all other items except labor
Total cost.........
SO.1825
.4675
28.08
71.92
.6500
100.00
3259
SO. 0260
.4522
5.44
94.56
.4782
100.00
No. 2 yarn.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
Gl run vain e
! 32 inches w ide; weight. 31 ounces per yard;
picks o f'w eft iier1 Inel|b0th Warp and vvoft: 35 ends of warp and 26
« ‘, .
Amount. Per cent
of total.
Cost of materinuran^f0nming
• ermls and all othermfttcrials..................
items except labor .
SO. 035
.105
25.00
75.00
. . ,
^ ^ l i n o
jircrnt Inhnr
. -
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
No 420.— c/offc;
woolen cloth
Woolen
c lo th ;•
S 'M " ’ 2 d'!
.
•’* A'UVWIUuer»
24.36
75.61
1.56
100.00
Total cost.........
unit 1 vaivi
SO. 24
1.22
16.44
83.56
1.46
100.00
^Ch^Jiot;*54 *i n c hes° w ide'•' wnrs’t !,897 ;
O' 10 W° rSted : w eft
SO. 0800
.2866
21.82
78.18
.3666
100.00
Per cent
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials.........• - -—
Cost of materials and all other items except labor
---------------—
s s ^ s s ^ T s a sexcept labor.
100.00
No. 433.— Woolen yarn : United S ta te s ; 1897-98; unit, 1 pound.
No. 3 yarn.
woS!e^ V .hASp{? Al ; ; s a ;i ?0 !p7eti
Amount. Per cent
of total.
.6060
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
r 3 Whh> c o n i-% JZ“ *ted S tates; November, 1897; unit, 1 yard.
oJ run and 9 run
h dc ’
V ounces l>Pr yard; warp yarn,
Picks of weft pe“ ’ m d f d ’ WCft yarn’ 4 run ’ 98 ecds of warp and 40
SO. 38
1.18
4.74
95.26
No. 432.— Woolen yarn : United States; November, 1897; unit, 1 pound
No. 2 yarn.
Total cost__
Cost of matori«uranJf0irim ing materia ls ..................
onals and all other items except labor.
Total co st__
SO.0287
.5773
SO.0382
.4987
7.11
92.89
100.00
Total cost.
No. 434.— Woolen yarn: United S ta te s; December, 1897; unit, 1 pound.
No. 3 yarn.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials...................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor.
unit- 1 3’ard.
91 andeNoWa30P tw is t ? 2 0 ’p i c ^ ^ h 2 f ° 'd
. 0337
.5788
5.50
94.50
.6125
100.00
No. 435.— W oolen y arn : United S ta te s ; November, 1897; unit, 1 pound.
No. 3J yarn.
A»»"”t' i 3 r,ocS !
Percent
Amount. oftotai.
Con of m ^ rri«itranaf01rilling materials.........
atenals and all other items except labor !
Total cost.........
SO. 2233
.5349
29.45
70.55
Cost of labor in transforming materials...........---• Cost of materials and all other items except labor.
.Great B ritain; 1897; unit, 1 yard
N<>- 12; 325pick8hpSr^ndch:. W° ° len warp and w e f t ! warp No. 1 2 ; weft
jn. transforming materials...................
materials and all other items except labor .
Total cost..............
SO.2026
.4752
29.89
70.11
No. 436.— W oolen yarn : United S ta te s ; December, 1897; unit, 1 pound.
No. 4 yarn.
•
—
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials....... -••••-Cost of materials and all other items except labor.
SO. 0412
.5938
No. 437.— Woolen yarn : United States; 1897-98; unit, 1 pound.
No. 5 yarn.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Per cent
of total.
Cost nt !ilb?r *n transforming materials...................
ot materials and all other items except labor
Total cost.
SO. 2407
.7162
25.15
74.85
6.49
93.51
100.00
Total cost.
B ritain; 1897; unit, 1 yard.
18 ; weft N n °iSi C<V noG. *nclles wide * woolen warp and w e ft; warp No.
18 I 50 picks per inch.
U 0O n d r e 7 7 CJ , ^ L 9 T^
23.12
76.88
Total c o st.
Amount. Per cent
of total.
Cost of
SO. 1000
.3325
Cost of labor in transforming materials...................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor
Total cost.............................................................
SO.0640
.5409
10.48
89.52
100 on
3260
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
W oolen goods— Continued.
No. 438.— W oolen y a rn : U nited S t a te s ; December, 1897 ; unit, 1 pound.
No. 5 yarn.
/
Amount Per
c« lt
Amount,
of total_
7.71
92.29
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials..................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor
.6645
100.00
Total cost..............................................................
No. 439.— W oolen y a rn : U nited S t a te s ; November, 1 897; unit, 1 pound.
No. 55 yarn.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all other items except labor
$0.1200
.4165
22.37
77.68
.5365
100.00
Total c o st................................
No. 440.— W oolen y a rn : U nited S ta te s; 1 8 0 7 -9 8 ; unit, 1 pound.
No. 6 yarn.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all other items except iubT
$0.0742
.5505
11.88
88.12
.6247
100.00
Total co st.........................
No. 441.— W oolen y a rn : U nited S t a te s : December, 1897 ; unit, 1 pound.
No. 6 yarn.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all other items except inf.er
$0.0637
.6218
9.29
90.71
.6855
100.00
Total co st........................................
No. 442.— W oolen y a rn : U nited S t a te s ; 1 8 9 7 -9 8 ; unit, 1 pound.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
Cost of materials and all other items except. lnhr>r
$0.0941
.6025
13.61
86.49
.6966
100.00
Total cost......................................
No. 443.— W oolen y a rn : U nited S t a te s ; November, 1897 ; unit, 1 pound.
No. 9 yarn.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials.
Cost of materials and all other items except, lnhnr
$0.1500
.6055
19.85
80.15
.7555
100.00
Total cost.........................................
No. 8 yarn.
No. 444.— W oolen y a rn : U nited S ta te s; 1 8 9 7 -9 8 ; unit, 1 pound.
No. 10 yarn.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
Cost of labor in transforming materials
.....................
Cost of materials and all other items except labor....................
Total cost....................................
$0.1085
. 6322
14.65
8^.35
.7407
100.00
No. 445.— W oolen y a rn : Belgium ; 1897 ; unit, 1 pound.
cent
Amount. Per
of total.
$0.0700
.1926
26.66
73.34
.2626
100.00
15,
W oolen goods— Continued.
$0.0512
.6133
Total cost..............................................
une
No. 446.— W oolen yarn : B elg iu m ; 1807; unit, 1 pound.
Per cent
Amount. of total.
Cost of labor in transforming m aterials..
Cost of materials and all other items except lahnr
J
$0.0306
.2320
11.65
88.35
100.00
C E N S U S T A B L E S , S H O W IN G PER C E N T A G E OP LABOR TO VALUE O P PRO DUCT
I N C O ST O P P R O D U C T IO N .
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I submit the follow ing tables,
taken from Table 156 of the Abstract o f the Census of 1900,
relative to 15 groups of industries. W hile these tables can not
be called m icroscopically exact, they certainly comprise the best
evidence available to show the relative return to labor and to
capital affected by the tariff, and in so far as they lack pre
cision are more favorable to capital than to labor, because these
figures were obtained from the reports of m anufacturing estab
lishm ents controlled by capital, and the evidences, therefore, are
out of the m ouths of the m anufacturers themselves, but are
based on watered stocks, and cover returns to capital contained
in salaries and m iscellaneous item s which can not be determined.
These tables which I shall submit w ill show the capital al
leged to be invested in 1890, 1900, and 1905, w ith the expenses,
including salaries o f officers, amounts paid in wages, amounts
paid under the head of “ M iscellaneous,” and the amount paid
for “ m aterials,” w ith the value of the product and the profit,
showing the percentage of profit to capital and the percentage
paid to labor out of the proceeds of labor, and the percentage
of w ages to the increase of value by manufacture.
I have been compelled to make these compilations, and am in
debted for the calculations to Mr. Josiah H. Shinn, of W ashing
ton, a statistical expert of high standing, and to Mr. J. J. Mc
Coy, Actuary of the United States Treasury. The Census Bureau
neglected to point out in its tables the comparative reward of
capital and labor, and I bave done so, in order to sbow the
truth w ith regard to it.
N either the Committee on Finance nor the Committee on
W ays and Means in the H ouse has seen fit to furnish th is in
formation to the country, and yet only in this direction and
by like methods and tables can be determined “ the difference
in cost of labor or of production at home and abroad ” on which
th is tariff bill is falsely pretended to be drawn.
The percentage o f labor is worked out in every one of the
great tables affecting the 14 groups of industries in the United
States from details gathered w ith infinite care from the manu
facturer him self, and are therefore as favorable to him as
they m ight naturally be expected to he. A very interesting
ratio o f the relative wages is found in these tables; that is to
say, that under this high prohibitive tariff, engendering mo
nopolies, the result has follow ed which m ight be expected to
follow —that labor continually receives a dim inishing share of
that which it produces. For instance, taking the textile indus
try, in 1890 labor received 22 per cent of the gross product;
in 1902 it received 20.8 per cent of the gross product; and in
1905 it received 19.5 per cent. So it w ill be found all through
these tables that the monopolies which have been built up upon
these tariffs have gradually diminished the part which labor
receives.
Look at these wonderful tables, showing the profits of the
various m anufacturers of the country by groups of industries.
Remember the enormous stock-watering operations shown by
Moody’s Manual and by Poor’s Manual and the corporation
statistics of the last fifteen years, and then consider w hat it
means when th is watered capital on food products pays 16.4
per cent interest, w ith a fairly estim ated profit, considering
water, o f 32 per cent; on textiles, of 12 per cent, w ith a fairly
estimated profit of 24 per cent; on iron and steel, of 10.6 per
cent, which would be probably 30 per cent; on lumber, of 18.7
per cent, and probably of nearly 50 per cent; on the industries
of leather, 13.5 per cent, when it should be at least three times
th at; and so all through the list.
These monopolies are shown to have the certain enormous
rates o f profits which these tables point out. These tables neces
sarily include a m ultitude of companies whose profits are reason
able and ju st in every respect, who are not monopolists, who are
doing business on a fair com petitive market, so that the profits
of monopoly are the special profits which sw ell this total to a
high figure, and which stand above, and far above, the average
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
8261
which are given. When there is also taken into consideration S u m m a r y o f m a n u f a c t u r e s by f o u r t e e n g r o u p s o f i n d u s t r i e s — Continued,
the fact that on a physical valuation they would not have prob
ably one-third of the capital invested which they pretend to
1890.
have by their capital stock; when it is remembered that under
the head of salaries and miscellaneous expenses and other artful
methods of bookkeeping the earnings of these monopolies are 1. Food-products indusfe
Continued.
being secretly used and concealed and being invested in vari
$2,845,234,900 $2,277,702,010 $1,636,197,191
Value of gross output..
$2,304,410,50-4 $1,839,250,143 $1,318,963,830
ous forms of property, it is h q . exaggeration to say that the earn
Cost of materials..........
ings on physical valuation are probably three times what they
Increase in value............
$317,233,301
appear to be on the face of the census reports.
$90,373,450
Cost of labor...........................
Per cent of cost of labor to
Mr. President, I call the attention of Senators in considering
increase
in
value...................
these tables and invite them to remember that since 1890 the 2. Textile industries:
United States has gone through the most remarkable stockCapital......................................
watering operation that the civilized world has ever seen. And
Expenses—
the earning power of labor and of public franchises has been
$49
,281,415
$35, 496,483
Officers............
$341
Sil9,811,630
$278, 167,709
capitalized in a m u ltitude of monopolies, which have been estabWages______
$199,066,204
$12S
404,675
Miscellaneouslsned by combining competing enterprises into single companies,
$895
$1,246,562,061
$705, 004,909
Materials____
o that, while the capital of 1890 was in a large measure watered
$1,416, 182,766 $1,097, 073,839
$1,934,751,370
lorv-’
's l)r°bably no exaggeration to say that the capital of
Total$ 221 , 301,718
$212,690,048
$164, 598,665
Profit.
A™ W1U average probably 66 per cent of “ w ater; ” so that
$1,637, 484,484 $1,261, 672,504
vhen you consider the percentage of profit on the capital in
$2,147,441,418
Gross product..............-- ---- 16.1
12
13.3
ese tables it should be at least doubled and should be prob
Per cent profit on capital stock
Labor's share of gross prod
ably trebled to give a fair estimate.
19.5
uct, per cent.........................
Another item which should be kept in mind is that the men
$1,637,484,484 $1,261, 672,504
Value of gross output............ . $2,147,441,418
° control corporate organizations can allow themselves such
$895,984,796
$705, 004,909
Cost of materials--------------- $1,246,552,001
'T ™ , rewards under the head of salaries that this item is
$741, 499,688
$900,879,358
$555, 667,595
additional item in favor of capital. With
Increase in value--------$341,
734,399
$119,841,630
167,769
Cost of labor....... . . . . . . . .
^
xp anatlon> it will be seen that labor’s share of the return
Per cent of co3t of labor to
46.1
dnsi rioa
. ue 111 tuls aggregate group or ail the great inincrease in valu e...---------aftor evL i -tlng t0 manufactured products is very small and, 3. Iron and steel industries!
$1,528 979,076
$997,872,483
Capital............... - ....................
tlm ,
tlle necessaries of life, leaves labor no surplus;
i ioht of capital, confessedly, is 16.4 per cent,
Expenses—
$58,090,781
$100,444,685
$36,583,536
the nrrfit!r' President, j snbmit a tabulated abstract showing
Officers— ..........................
$381,875,499
$4S2,357,503
$285,351,714
W a g e s................................
mu
+ iS, 0f *;apital conceded; also a table of estimated profits
$91,492,127
$166,89G,5S7
$57,694,853
natiolannduftriesC;bable Pr09tS
^
14 great groups ° f onr
T H E M EANING OP WORDS USED IN T H E TABLES
k e e n e r ^ c i l ^ T T the f larles of offlcials- salesmen, bookS
foremen ’ Stenograpbers: in some cases, superintendents
H ages. The word “ wages ” means the wages of workingmen
Miscellaneous.—Means (see Special Report of Census M inn’
factures, vol. 1, 3905, p. xeix) :
census, Manu1. Amount paid for rent of factory or works
o' ^ mount Paid for taxes, not including internal revenue
fo L ™ “ OUnt P?‘d f° r, J nt of °® ces and buildings other than
cCtoij or works, an^l for interest, insurance, internal-revenue
rCpatrs of buildings and machinery, advertSing.
)' lin(j expenses, and all other sundry expenses not reported
under the head of “ M aterials.”
'
“
M aterials.—'The word “ materials,” page ci, means1. Cost of components of the product.
2. Cost of fuel, oil, and waste.
o. Packing boxes, and materials to make them
4. Wrapping paper.
o. Freights paid by the manufacturers.
6- Rent of power and heat.
Ibo salaried offlcials include the administration force,
unether of sales, manufacturing, purchasing, advertising, or
n a il orders (p. lxxiv).
See Exhibit 1.
1905.
Food-products industries:
Capital....... .......................
1900.
1890.
Miscellaneous...............
$987,198,370
$1,179,981,458
Materials.............................
$1,929,680,234 $1,518,653,777
Total.
$274,834,131
$247,059,492
Profit----- ------------- ------$1,793,490,908
17.9
$1,144,056,537
14.7
$806,292,538
$326,502,311
$844,828,318
$183,073,261
$740,591,022
$137,363,808
$1,223,730,336 $1,030,906,579
Gross product.........---------- *
19.6
18.7
Per cent profiton capital stock.
Labor’s share of gross prod
27.4
uct, per cent............ -...........
“>23,730,336 $1,030,906,579
Value of gross output.
$561,501,302
1518,908,150
Cost of materials.........
$469,405,277
$704,822,183
Increase in value............
$212,201,768
$336,058,173
Cost of labor...................... -—
Per cent of cost of labor to
47.7
increase in value...................
Leather industries:
$440,777,194
Capital......................................
$S77,054,920
16.2
Gross product.........
Per cent profiton capital stock.
Labor’s share of gross prod-1
uct, per cent......................---
22.10
$2 176,739,726
Value of gross output............. $ l |179,981,458
Cost of materials--------------Increase in value--------Cost of labor....... -----------Per cent of cost of labor to
increase in value-------------4. Lum ber industries:
Capital......................................
Expenses—
Officers................................
Wages.........-......................
Miscellaneous....................
Materials............................
Total.
Profit.
$48,571,851
$336,058,173
$130,850,824
$518,908,150
$1,034,389,OOS
$189,341,328
Expenses—
Officers............
Wages............ .
Miscellaneous.
Materials....... .
$18,372,722
$116,694,140
$40,737,343
$471,112,921
Total.
Profit.
$846,017,126
$58,830,344
Gross product....... ...................
Per cent profiton capital stock.
Labor's share of gross prod
uct, per cent...........................
$705,747,470
13.3
16.5
16.9
20.1
$583,731,046
$395,551,232
$487,556,030
$294,446,011
$193,110,019
$98,432,593
$14,186,690
$99,759,8S5
$22,942,594
$395/551,232
$940,889,838
$307,678,328
$51,456,614
$164,601,813
$131,773,042
$2,304,416,56-4
$39,313,634
$129,910,070
$77,986,185
$1,839,256,143
$33,313,664
$90,373,450
$52,936,982
$1,318,963,830
$2,652,248,833
$192,9S6,067
$2,086,466,062
$191,235,948
$1,495,587,923
$140,609,265
Value of gross output.
Cost of materials------
$705,747,470
$471,112,921
Gross product........................... : $2,845,234,900
16.4
Per cent profit on capital stock.
Labor’s share of gross prod-1
5.7
uct, per cent................
$2,277,702,010
20
$1,636,197,191
27.6
$234,634,549
$116,694,140
$188,179,814
$99,759,8S5
5.7
5.5
Increase in value............
Cost of labor...........................
Per cent of cost of labor to
increase in value...................
49.7
53
Officers...........................
Wages..........................
Miscellaneous_______
Materials.....................
P ro fit.
Total.........................
$15,348,257
$98,432,593
$18,587,831
$294,446,011
$426,814,702
$30,741,328
$1,173,151,276
Expenses—
$617,554,226
$997,184,329
$146,872,208
$583,731,0)6
14.9
$487,556,030
24.6
3262
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
Sum m ary of m anufactures b y fou rteen groups of indu stries— Continued.
1905.
Sum m ary of m anufactures by fourteen groups of indu stries— Continued.
1890.
1900.
J une 15,
1995.
1890.
1900.
$34,625,986
$117,611,864
$59,524,277
$149,597,579
10. Metals and metal products
other than iron and steel—
Continued.
Expenses:
Officers............- ..................
Wages............................ ......
Miscellaneous.......................
Materials..............................
$24,854,590
$117,599,837
$41,595,062
$644,367,583
$16,059,191
$96,749,051
$21,205,406
$196,979,368
$14,924,917
$64,055,644
$14,731,078
$179,169,940
$179,294,677
$127,023,091
$361,359,706
$84,227,724
T otal..................................
Profit........... ........ .......................
$823,417,072
$93,845,384
$631,083,019
$117,712,445
$272,881,579
$44,026,571
$606,317,768
22.7
$145,587,430
24.4
$922,262,456
15.6
$748,795,464,
28.6
$316,908,150
21.5
26.5
Gross product............................
Per cent profit on capital stock.
Labor’s share of gross product, per cent............................
12.7
12.9
20.4
$445,587,430
$149,597,579
Value of gross output..............
Cost of materials..................... .
$922,262,456
$644,367,583
$748,795,464
$496,979,368
$316,908,150
$179,169,940
$295,989,851
$117,611,834
$277,894,873
$117,599,837
$251,816,096
$96,749,051
$137,738,210
$64,055,644
6. Paper and printing:
Capital.........................................
$798,758,312
$557,610,887
$344,003,723
Expenses—
Officers...................................
Wages....................- .............
Miscellaneous.......................
Materials....................- ........
$81,808,311
$185,547,791
$138,245,437
$308,209,655
$48,974,138
$140,092,453
$76,069,663
$214,158,423
T otal.............- ...................
Profit............................................
$713,811,194
$143,301,062
Gross product......... ..................
Per cent profit on capital stock.
Labor’s share of gross product, per cent............................
$857,112,256
17.9
21.6
23.1
Value of gross output..............
Cost of materials......... ...........
$857,112,256
$308,209,655
$608,317,768
$214,158,423
Increase in value.............
Cost of labor...............................
Per cent of cost of labor to
increase in value...................
V. Liquors and beverages:
Capital................................ ......
$548,902,601
$185,547,791
$392,159,345
$140,092,453
33.8
35.7
39.7
$310,002,635
Increase in value....... .
Cost of labor..............................
Per cent of cost of labor to
increase in value....................
11. Tobacco:
C apital-...................................,
42.3
38.4
46.5
$323,983,501
$124,089,871
$96,094,753
$859,547,620
$534,101,049
Expenses—
Officers..................................
Wages...................................
Miscellaneous................ ......
Materials-.............. .............
$21,421,353
$45,146,285
$223,446,420
$139,854,147
$16,893,405
$36,946,557
$188,754,387
$122,218,073
$11,118,673
$29,140,916
$117,046,500
$109,830,410
Expenses—
Officers.................................
W ages...................................
Miscellaneous.......................
Materials..............................
$8,800,434
$62,640,303
$80,145,016
$126,088,608
$8,951,534
$19,852,4S4
$79,495,422
$107,182,656
$10,241,271
$44,550,735
$37,561,681
$92,304,317
T otal................ - ...............
Profit..................................... .
$429,868,205
$71,398,400
$364,812,422
$60,691,745
$267,136,589
$74,018,772
T otal..................................
Profit............................................
$277,674,361
$53,443,320
$245,482,090
$37,594,450
$184,658,004
$27,088,619
Gross product......... - .................
Per cent profit on capital stock.
Labor’s share of gross product, per cent-------- ----------
$501,266,605
$425,504,167
11.3
$341,155,361
23.8
$331,117,681
16.4
$283,076,546
30.2
$211,746,623
28.1
8.9
8.6
S.5
Gross product......... ..................
Per cent profit on capit al stock.
Labor’s share of gross product, per cent............................
18.9
17.6
Value of gross output...............
Cost of materials.................. .
$501,266,605
$139,854,147
$425,504,167
$122,218,073
$341,155,361
$109,830,410
Value of gross output-.............
Cost of materials.....................
$331,117,081
$126,088,608
$283,076,546
$107,1S2,656
$211,746,623
$92,304,317
Increase in value.............
$361,412,458
Cost of labor---------------------$45,146,285
Per cent o f cost of labor to
increase in value
... —
12.5
8. Chemicals and allied products:
Capital......................................... $1,504,728,510
S?03,283,094
$36,946,557
$231,324,951
$29,140,916
Increase in value.............
Cost of labor................ .............
Per cent of cost of labor to
12. B
increase in value.....................
12. Vehicles for land transporta$322,543,674
tion:
Capital.........................................
$205,029,073
$62,640,303
$175,893,890
$49,852,484
$119,442,300
$44,550,735
30.5
28.3
37.3
io.8
12.2
$498,390,219
$447,697,020
$396,778,672
$248,224,770
Expenses—
Officers...................................
Wages.................................
Miscellaneous.......................
Materials......... ......... ..........
$24,334,118
$221,800,517
$29,107,049
$334,244,377
$15,191,444
$164,614,781
$19,842,332
*$268,278,205
$11,172,134
$118,212,379
$9,460,374
$174,684,639
T otal..................................
Profit...........................................
$609,486,681
$34,437,781
$467,926,762
$40,722,367
$313,469,526
$31,006,717
Gross p rodu ct...----- ----------Per cent profit on capital stock.
Labor’s share of gross product, per cent. .........................
$643,924,442
7.G
$508,640,129
10.2
$344,476,243
12.4
34.4
32.4
34.3
$140,140,703
$33,872,510
Value of gross output..............
Cost of materials.............. ......
$643,924,442
$334,244,377
$508,619,129
$268,278,205
$344,476,243
$171,624,639
22.3
24.2
$309,680,065
$221,800,517
$240,370,924
$164,614,781
$169,851,604
$118,212,379
$350,902,367
$217,386,297
Increase in value______
Cost of la b o r ............................
Per cent of cost of labor to
increase in value__________
13. Shipbuilding:
Capital.........................................
Expenses—
Officers...................................
Wages........- ------- ----------Miscellaneous.......................
Materials..............................
$49,864,233
' $93,965,248
$128,879,323
$009,351,160
$26,335,164
$43,870,602
$49,825,945
$356,192,334
$14,171,587
$33,872,540
$29,508,992
$239,915,794
T otal......... .......................
Profit............................................
$882,059,964
$149,905,299
$476,224,045
$76,6G7,832
$317,468,913
$62,587,584
Gross product............................ $1,031,965,263
Per cent profit on capit al stock.
9.9
Labor’s share of gross product, per cent............................
8
$552,891,877
15.3
$380,056,497
19.4
7.9
8.9
Value of gross output........— $1,031,965,263
Cost of materials......................
$609,351,160
$552,891,877
$356,192,334
$380,056,497
$239,915,794
$422,614,103
$93,965,248
$196,699,543
$43,870,602
22.2
$553,846,682
Increase in value.. ----Cost of labor..............................
Per cent of cost of labor to
increase in value
. . --9. Clay, glass, and stone products:
Capital____________________
Expenses—
Officers..................................
W ages..................................
21
71.6
6S.5
69.6
$121,623,700
$77,332,701
$.53,393,074
$2,008,537
$24,839,163
$3,685,661
$33,486,772
$1,194,870
$14,853,977
$1,392,551
$16,925,109
Materials_______________
$21,555,724
$148,471,903
$37,822,036
$123,124,392
$13,718,966
$109,022,582
$19,185,657
$94,615,281
$11,370,622
$90,541,771
$14,094,710
$68,990,146
T otal................................
Profit................................ ..........
$330,974,055
$60,256,367
$236,542,4S6
$57,021,749
$181,997,279
$44,808,724
Materials............................
$3,339,741
$29,241,087
$5,255,506
$37,463,179
$391,230,422
10.8
$293,564,235
16.2
$229,806,003
20.6
Profit..........................................
$75,299,513
$7,469,726
$64,020,13.3
$10,558,025
$34,346,507
$5,995,608
$82,769,239
6.1
$74,578,158
13.6
$40,342,115
11.2
35.2
33.3
33.7
$82,769,239
$37,463,179
$74,578,158
$33,483,772
$40,342,115
$16,925,109
$45,306,060
$29,211,087
$41,091,386
$24,839,163
$23,417,006
$14,8-53,977
64.5
60.4
S3.3
Per cent profit on capital stock
Labor’s share of gross product, per cent...........................
Expenses—
Officers.................................
Wages_________________
37.1
37.4
39,3
Value of gross output.............
Cost of materials-------- -------
$391,230,422
$123,124,392
$293,564,235
$94,615,281
$229,806,003
$68,990,146
Gross product............................
Per cent profit on capital stock
Labor’s share of gross product, per cent....................... .
Increase in value.............
Cost of labor----- --------------Per cent of cost of labor to
increase in value.............. .
10. Metals and metal products
other than iron and steel:
Capital.......................................
$268,106,030
$148,471,903
$198,9-18,954
$109,022,582
$160,815,857
$90,541,771
Cost of materials.....................
55.4
54.8
56.3
$598,340,758
$410,646,057
$204,285,820
Increase in value.............
Cost of labor..................... ......
Per cent of cost of labor to
1909.
CONGEESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Summary o f manufactures by fourteen groups of industries— C on tin u ed .
Summary of manufactures by fourteen groups of industries— Continued.
1905.
18S0.
It. Miscellaneous:
Capital.................
§974,316,571
Expenses—
Officers...........
Wages............
Miscellaneous
Materials.......
$1,318,920,721
$768,870,920
§50,655,229
$187,514,312
$101,198,364
$160,205,501
$49,199,283
$202,746,162
$81,933,611
$190,073,705
$33,363,252
$136,613,441
$19,025,323
$300,231,851
Profit...............
T o ta l_____
$799,573,406
$142,031,467
$823,952,761
$180,139,533
$519,263,870
$126,310,583
Gross product__
$911,601,873
$1,004,092,294
$-345,574,453
_
3263
14. Miscellaneous—Continued.
Per cent profit on capital stock.
Labor’s share ot gross prod-'
uct, per cent..........................
1900.
1890.
14.5
13.3
16.4
19.9
24.6
21.1
Value of gross output.
Cost of materials.........
$941,604,873
$460,205,501
$1,004,092,294
$490,073,705
$645,574,453
$300,231,851
Increase in value....... —
Cost of labor...........................
Per cent of cost of labor to
increase in value...................
$481,399,372
$187,514,312
$514,018,589
$202,746,162
$345,342,602
$136,643,444
38.9
39.4
39.5
Average percentage of wages to labor compared to gross product in the Ilf great classes of industries.
Profit on
capital,
1905.
Industries.
Ratio of wages to gross product.
1905.
j:
!:
i
5.
7
o'
o-
j,
................... — ................
Stss;—— —
Leather.
----- --------------------------f c at>d printing:..................................
Juniors and beverages.............................
Chemicals and allied products'.................
..........
konand ateeu* Product3
>S* ™°bncco___ ;
it. Miscellaneous...........
“*---------
*.............................
Eor full details see Exhibit 1.
find value of products.
r e l a t iv e
1900.
Estimated
profit on
capital.
Probable
profit on
capital.
1890.
Per cent of
labor
wages to
gross
product.
16.4
12
10.6
18.7
13.3
17.9
10.8
9.9
10.8
5.7
19.5
22.1
27.4
16.5
21.6
8.9
S
37.1
5.7
20.8
21.2
20.6
16.9
23.1
8.6
7.9
37.4
5.5
22
24.9
22.9
20.1
26.5
8.5
8.9
39.3
32.8
24
21.2
37.4
26.6
35.8
20. G
19.8
20.6
49.2
36
31.8
56.1
39.9
53.7
32.4
29.7
32.4
5.7
19.5
22.1
27.4
16.5
21.6
8.9
8
37.1
15.6
16.4
7.6
6.1
14.5
12.7
18.9
34.4
35.2
19.9
12.9
17.6
32.4
33.3
24.0
20.4
21
34.3
36.7
21.1
31.2
32.8
15.2
12.2
29
46.8
49.2
22.8
18.3
43.5
12.7
18.9
34.4
35.2
19.9
Per cent of wages to increase of
value in manufactures by la
bor.
1900.
30.4
46.6
48.5
47.7
49.7
33.8
12.5
33.7
46.1
45
45.2
53
35.7
39.7
22.2
55.4
22.3
64.8
24.2
56.3
42.3
30.5
71.6
64.5
38.9
38.4
28.3
68.5
60.4
39.4
46.5
37.3
12.2
35.1
50
46
48.5
51
12.6
G9.6
63.3
39.5
Average rate of wages to gross product in a ll in d u s trie s , 17.S p er cen t, ca lc u la tin g from ta b le of to ta ls o f w ag es
labor c o s t .
! ceal the facts, to refuse to bear, to ridicule the inquiry, and
ignore the facts when proven is surely indefensible.
tohfo;
,T.he first imP°rtaBt deduction shown from these
This abstract briefly exhibits the ratio of w ages to gross
nro w
relative cost of labor as compared with toe groS products and affords a basis of comparison with the ratio of
tb l I1
Js less tlmn G I**1' cent in food products and vet wages to gross products in countries compe m g with ours. This
the tariff on food products is an average of 32 per cent! in order supplies a basis for a g e n eralization showing the difference in
to measure the cost of difference at home and abroad
the cost of production at home and aoroa •
. i l ‘G, total. lab°r cost in textiles is 1U.5 per cent and v<n- thn
It will be seen, for example, that the a-iera^e ratio of wages
tariff in this bill on flax manufactures is over 44 per cent on paid to the gross product in the textile in us ry averages 19.5
cotton manufactures over 47 per cent, on wooi ™ ^ t n r e s per cent, less than 20 per cent. The difference m the wage
oi er oS per cent, and on silk manufactures over 60 ne m a fn cost ill the United States and abroad, concedinB that the for
measl]re the difference in the cost of producISu at home and eign workman receives a wage only half o t at paid the Ameri
abio.id, a patent and ridiculous fraud on its face which In s not can workman and conceding that he is equallj efficient and
^
^ explained, an^’ 3 k ? can Sol conceding that his wages'(half m money) as a purchasing
^
of ,h ls b111' an<i so “ « » » on
power of half the wages of the American workman, the differ
ence in the cost of production based on sue 55ages would be an
a5-erage of less than 10 per cent.
taT!“ t ! t e ‘i f m 5 US .fo °n t,h e ’'"'U eof ,Lo Ilrodnct pa“ ln wage3
But it is not true that the wages paid foreign workmen
<hat tbo labor cost to Europe la absolutely buys only half as much, but the
13 tliat e'’ery dollai paid
rv,,
g - ’f .we concede that the foreigner would not have to the foreign workman buys at least 50 per cent more than the
in.'r cauy freight to bring his goods to America, would pay noth dollar paid the American workman, so that $1C paid a Euro
ing tor ocean insurance, for breakage, wharfage, dockage, leak pean 5vorkman is equi5'alent to $15 in purchasing po55er in the
age, rattage, or stealage, still 19.5 per cent would be high enough United States.
...
.
10 Protect the American manufacturer o n a n a v e r a g e .
So that the difference in the amount paid m wages because
Granting, however, that the European laborer earns half of this factor as compared to the value of the gross pioduct
as much, then one-half of 19.5 per cent would be sufficient,
is less than an average of 10 per cent, as above estuna e . ^
g a t i n g that the American laborer has twice the efficiency
Another factor of vital importance is the superior efficiency
r the European laborer, then no tariff whatever is necessary to of the American 5vorkman. Ten dollars paid to him turns out
:v '’;ect the American manufacturer; and granting that the twice as much goods as that paid the European workman;
' f os babl in Europe buy more of manufactured products and consequently the difference in 5vages compared to gioss product
fact .
of food Products as in America, the European inanu- is not only not against the American workman, but it is in Ms
to
would be entitled to a bonus from his home government favor, although he does not get the benefit of it troni the man
Put him on a parity with the American manufacturer,
who employs him.
It is not surprising, in 5'iew of these calculations based upon
in some cases a duty is necessary for protective purposes, but
. a buses are few and the rate not high. A tariff for revenue our national statistics and well-established facts, that the man
intelligently drawn will be more than three times as high as a agers in charge of this bill dare not answer the question whethtariff for pure protection drawn in a spirit of perfect honesty. er this bill is being 55-ritten in accordance with the pledge of
it the Finance Committee can show any justification for the the party that the rates should be determined by the differ
schedules on the basis o f the “ difference of the cost of produc ence in the cost of production at home and abroad.
The monopolist can not and does not consume his profit. So
tion at home and abroad,” l a m willing to concede thfs measure
° i incidental protection under a tariff for revenue, but to con- I that the result is that Ihe capital of monopoly is rolling uii like
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3264
a huge snowball, picking up every opportunity offered by God
to mankind in our natural resources—the forests, the mines,
: the water powers, the highways, and the land, both of city
and of the countryside; and labor, the creator of wealth,
languishes and grows weaker as the creature of wealth grows
stronger and exercises a natural but unrestrained appetite
by “ acquiring ” the title to every visible and invisible natural
l
resource.
Mr. President, I am a firm friend of capital and alw ays ready
to befriend its just rights. I believe in giving it safety and
stability, protecting it in its right to earn a fair reward upon its
employment. It is of great importance that the incentive should
be removed neither from the capitalist nor from the business
man who uses capital nor from the laborer who is employed by
capital, but I do not believe that all of the net proceeds of human
labor and every opportunity of human life should be appro
priated by capital and all the reasonable opportunities of life
cut off from m illions of wage-earners who have no more wisdom
or knowledge of how to protect them selves against the crafty
schemes of monopoly than if they were so many blind girl
babies. The Senate and the Senators on this floor, it seems to
| me, are under a'solem n personal responsibility to find the way
to protect the weaker elem ents of society, and they ought not to
w rite the law s of th is country to serve monopoly at the expense
of the defenseless citizen wage-earner.
The incentive ought not to be taken away from cap ital; neither
should the incentive be taken away from the small business man
| who may be crushed by gigantic organizations of capital, and
above all the incentive of a reasonable reward, of a reasonable
return for labor, of the power to support a fam ily by labor, in
dustry, and providence. The power to have some leisure for
playtime should not be taken aw ay from the American work
ingman or the American working woman or the American
working child by the grinding process of unthinking corporate
monopoly.
Under the head of “ M iscellan y” are concealed many items
favorable to capital by increasing the capital itself under color
of repairs, and so forth.
The estim ate of the profit on capital is also too small, because
more than half of the capital claimed is water.
All of the return on capital, except a small percentage, neces
sary to provide for a reasonable return on capital, is a net
profit, w hile the return on labor contains no net profit worth
mentioning, although it is true that by long, hard hours of
labor, great deprivation, rigid economy, and careful saving, the
labor classes, through the savings banks exhibit a considerable
accumulation out of the proceeds of their labor.
S ta tistic s of the savin gs hanks of the U nited S ta tes for 1906.
[Comptroller Currency Report, 1907.]
i
j'
Amount o l
deposits.
Aver
age.
2,987,261
3,562,804
31,598
1,087,746
357,783
$1,168,148,705
1,656,905,727
6,143,167
385,503,885
265,435,714
$391.04
405.06
194.41
354.41
741.89
8,027,192
3,482,137,198
433.79
Total
depositors.
Total United States . . .
_.
The savings under forty years o f high-protective tariff aver
age $433.79 to those who have been able to save, and these fig
ures include hundreds of m illions of the savings of the well-todo and many of the capital class, but only one person in ten,
after all, has a savings account, and the savings between th e
laboring people and actual want w ill not average $43 per capita
for our entire productive population, counting all savings as the
savings of labor, w hile many m illions are utterly defenseless
against the exactions of capital.
When it is remembered what the enormous product of the
labor of the average American workman is—$2,500 per annum—
it w ill be observed that these savings of many years comprise
but a small part of the proceeds of labor.
In the table exhibited—the industries engaged in “ food
products ”— labor’s shai'e of the gross product is very small,
because of the very large amount of raw m aterial used, out
of which labor had previously been paid in the process of
production.
The same thing is relatively true of the industries dealing
with liquors and beverages.
J une 15,
It is also true that labor’s share in lumber and iron and
steel, and clay, glass, and stone products, and in vehicles and
shipbuilding reaches a high percentage relative to the product,
for the simple reason that nearly all of the value in lumber,
outside of the stumpage, is pure labor. Labor goes into the
woods, cuts the tree down, hauls it to the mill, puts it on the
runway, saw s the log, planes it, stacks the lumber, and puts
the lumber on the car. Capital, having acquired the land, fur
nishes the sawmill, and permits labor to have a part of its own
profits in wages, but no more than labor can command in a
free, competitive market for labor.
The same thing is true w ith regard to clay products. The
workman digs the clay out of the ground, puts it through every
process w ith the work of his hands, and converts it into a
finished product. Capital, having acquired the title to the clay,
permits the workmen to dig upon the earth, owned by the capi
talist, and furnishes the workmen w ith tools, and pays the
workmen precisely as much, and no more, as his labor com
mands in a free, competitive, labor market.
The laborer has a very narrow margin, and unless he be ex
ceptional in self-denial, in providence, and is free from accident
or sickness or other incidental loss, he may, perhaps, save
enough to -lift him self from the severe conditions which so en
viron him to a more fortunate place where he can join the
capital class and get the benefits of a system which is well de
vised to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
THE HIGH TARIFF HAS LOWERED THE WAGES OF AMERICAN WORKMEN.
Mr. President, the advocates of a high tariff have alw ays pro
fessed, and I suppose usually felt, the greatest solicitude for
the w elfare of the laboring man, and have believed, or appeared
to believe, that a high tariff would protect the American labor
ing man against the injurious competition of the “ pauper
labor ” of Europe. I shall show by our own statistics that the
w ages of the Am erican w orkm an have been lowered under the
operation of this tariff.
W ages are not valued alone by dollars and cen ts; dollars
change in purchasing power, depending on the number of dollars
put in circulation in any given country and the intimacy of its
commercial relations w ith other countries, and the whole world
is confused in the question of prices by the grossly unequal dis
tribution o f currency in the different nations of the world; a
great problem, which is now undergoing and w ill undergo a more
rapid readjustment under the fast increasing improvement of
rapid modern intercourse.
Attention is expressly called to the fact that labor’s share of
the proceeds of labor has not increased in the highly protected
industries—it has decreased.
In the textile industries labor received 22 per cent of the gross
product in 1890, 20.8 in 1900, and 19.5 in 1905.
In iron and steel labor received 24.9 per cent in 1890 and 22.1
per cent in 1905.
In leather goods labor received 21.1 per cent of the pro
ceeds of labor in 1890, 1G.9 per cent in 1900, and 16.5 per cent
in 1905.
In paper and printing labor received 26.5 per cent of the pro
ceeds of labor in 1890, 23.1 per cent in 1900, 21.6 per cent in
1905.
In chemical and allied products labor received 8.9 per cent in
1890, 8 per cent in 1905.
In clay, glass, and stone products labor received 39.3 per cent
in 1890, 37.1 per cent in 1900.
In metal and metal products, other than iron and steel, labor •
received 20.4 per cent in 1890 and 12.7 per cent in 1905.
In tobacco labor received 21 per cent in 1890 and 18.9 per cent
in 1905.
In shipbuilding labor received 36.7 per cent in 1890 and 35.2
per cent in 1905.
In miscellaneous industries labor received 21.1 per cent in
1890 and 19.9 per cent in 1905.
It is perfectly obvious that under the high tariff the re
ward of labor has diminished relatively to the gross product of
labor.
When w e compare the increase o f the value o f products,
the increase of the cost of materials, and the number of wageearners, and the total w ages between 1890 and 1900, w e find that
the growth o f capital value corresponding w ith that of the value
of products is decidedly more than the increase of total w ages;
that the average wage for all classes of wage-earners, in dol
lars and cents, is less in 1900 than in 1890. The increase of
earnings is 25 per c e n t; that of wages only a little over 22 per
cent.
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3265
f ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Capital
value.
1900..,.
Increase______
--------------------------- _ _
Average
Number of
value,
Total wages. product of Per cent.
wagethe wageearners.
earner.
$13,000,149 IRQ
9,372,378,843
5!l62,’013!878
n 206,143 $2,320,938,168
4^251,535 1,891,953,795
3,288,783,631
3,627,770,316
2,181,613,997
1,054,608
It has been convincingly shown by Edward Atkinson in his
learned report of December, 1902 (Exhibit 2), that not over
1,000,000 persons out of 29,000,000 persons would be affected in
an adverse way if the tariff were absolutely abolished. This cal
culation, made in great detail,' goes far to show the utterly false
pretense of a great public demand for a high protective or
Prohibitive tariff. Attention is earnestly called to it in Senate
Document No. 46, Sixty-first Congress, first session, from which
l submit the essential part as Exhibit 2.
TH^ n ,V IG H T A K IFF IIA S l o w e r e d t i i e w a g e s o f A m e r i c a n w o r k m e n in p r o t e c t f . d IN D U S T R IE S MORE TH A N T H E WAGES O F W O RK M EN IN U N
PROTECTED IN D U S T R IE S .
I submit as Exhibit 3 a carefully compiled table of the labor
wages of our American railways (Statistics of Railroads in
United States, 1907, Interstate Commerce Commission, p. 59),
showing the wages of railroad employees in the unprotected in
dustries of the railroad service, and also a table of the wages of
employees in building trades, which are not protected, but which
are duly organized, prepared by William J. Spencer, secretary of
the building-trade department of the American Federation of
Labor, for 1908 (Exhibit 4 ), showing the average wages of ma
sons and bricklayers, structural iron setters, ornamental iron
setters, plasterers, lathers, hoisting engineers, tile setters, plumbors> steam fitters, steam litters’ helpers, gas litters, carpenters,
stonecutters, marble cutters and setters, painters, sheet metal
workers, electricians, roofers, cement finishers, laborers, and
hod carriers. Their wages per hour will be seen to be, on an
average, at least twice as high as the wages of labor in protected
industries (Exhibit 5 ), as shown by Census Bulletin 77 of the
Bureau of Labor of 1907.
Mr. President, here will be seen that the cheapest workmen
(Exhibit 3) in the railroad service, the brakemen, received an
Average throughout the United States for 1907, $1.46 a day;
section foremen $1 90; other shopmen, $2.06; carpenters, $2.40;
hiachinists, $2 87- firemen and other trainmen, $2.54; con
ductors, $3.69; engineer men, $4.30; station agents, $2.05; gen
Cost of ma
terials.
6,525,050,759
4Q^*‘ne,teen hundred average wage, $437; annual weekly wage,
t0 support 3 people, a labor loss of 10 per cent in wages
relative to value of product.
cen tal i'riftffnon oe 0f wages to value of products was 17.8 per
TTor-i ic
• 2 per cent in 1890. a loss for labor of 10 per cent,
nets nf ok incr,ease o£ $3,627,740,31G in the value of tbe prodgoes in i <n,-T(>fto<ier tbe “ value of products,” and $428,984,373
m in i * A 8 additional laborers, while $3,198,755,943 is the
thnncnmf •
l ’r°ducts of such labor. One million fifty-four
wiiii ' -i ■ ?1X hundred and eight new workmen get $428,984,373
,0 sustain approximately 3,000,000 people; to feed,
’ .aa<£ shelter them; leaving no surplus for enforced idlcciint *?l<?^n?ss> Occident, or death ; and a vast profit goes to
„ 1 , that does not have the same exacting demands for food
n . fi.0, mg- The annual weekly wage is only $8.60 to supthe n i!ee peoPle- How does this compare with Europe where
to a--7V ,th u y s 50 per cent more, and $S.60 here is only equal
u there? Look at their wages, their earning power, and
1S the difference in the cost of production here and
ie. Do these census records teach us nothing?
nni hu above figures demonstrate beyond the possibility of dis
pute that wages are being lowered under the operation of a
monopoly-protecting tariff. It shows more, that a tariff avernearly 50 per cent is thoroughly unjustifiable on the Ret * lean theory of protecting labor, since the gross amount of
lanors wages only comprises an average of 19.7 per cent of
gross product value (Exhibit 1 ), much less on the theorv of
providing only the “ difference in the cost of labor,” since' the
difference in the cost of labor w ill not approximate 20 ner cent
nor equal the half of it.
1 ceut’
Pfiain ,trutl1 is tbe biil w in llot Protect labor, but will
gratify the clamorous demand of organized greed and avarice
urged by the lobby of numerous monopolies. This tariff, in the
pretended interest of the American workman, does not properlv
include over 1,000,000 out of 29,000,000 workmen, while it taxes
XLIV------205
Value of
products.
$2,450
2,204
17.8
20.2
428,984,373
eral office clerks, $2.30; other officers, $5.99; general officers,
$11.93. These wages in unprotected industries are decent, are
reasonable, are just according to service, in the transportation
work of the United States. These people have their wages in
fluenced to an important degree by labor organization.
Now, Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of the Senate
to the fact—and a vital fact in this matter—that in the pro
tected industries of the United States the wage-earner does not
receive one-half as much as in the unprotected industries, and
these tables abundantly exhibit it.
Exhibit No. 4 shows that masons and bricklayers get from
45 to 87 cents an hour; structural iron setters, 30 to 62 cents
an hour; ornamental iron setters, 30 to 70 cents an hou r; plas
terers, 50 to 874 cents an hour; lathers, 45 to 621 cents an h ou r;
hoisting engineers, 50 to 75 cents an hour; tile setters, 35 to 75
cents an hour; plumbers, 50 to 75 cents an h o u r s te a m fitters,
35 to 75 cents an hour; steam fitters’ helpers, lo to 3 <§ cents
an hour; gas fitters, 35 to 81 cents an hour; carpenters, 35 to
62J cents an hou r; stonecutters, 45 to 70 cents an hour; marble
cutters and marble setters, 30 to 621 cents an h ou r; painters,
25 to 56 cents an hour; sheet metal workers, o0 to 6-1 cents an
hour; electricians, 25 to 65 cents an hour; roofers, 25 to 7o
cents an hour; cement finishers, 35 to 7o cents an hour; laborers
upon the laboring man
prec sely as they do upon the capitalist, and he tries to get the
greatest return fo r his wares. Labor organizations have som ereason able m arket
T be urgency o f lab or's
o f putting them , eh e.
clothing is an exten uating circum need fo r supplying fo >d
js unreasonable and foolish ,
stance even when the demand h i
putg au ex orbita n t p rice
but when the demand
m otive is not hunger fo r fo o d or
2 S
fo r c M h in g or shelter for children, but m erely am bition
fo r power or mere greed ^ ^ c a l l the attention of the SenN o n , Mr. President,
between the w ages o f men in
ate to the astonishing d ifferen ce^ be^ ^ ^
„ prfeotected i n d “
unprotected indust
observe that the w ages in the protries, so called, and you
modified by a p ow erfu l organitected industries, excep
g]ass industry, are fa r below the
zation o f the laborers, »
g organ ized cap ital has beaten
wages in u u p iot®cft^ (
t0 ., point at w h ich the prop er support
d ow n the w ages o f labo
c(?nt Am erican standard is often
o f a fa m ily required by *
t 0f such offending m anuim possible. T h is meanness on tnc jia ii
fa etu rers is p ain fu lly apparent.
nriVEN OCT THE AMERICAN AND SUBTHE PROTECTED I N D U B T M M ^ S ^ D J poREIGNEU.
I t ba s resulted in driving out <:be
able to escape and ba s substituted in t o
bice tbe^oppiessed
people o f other races, who, hatin g been und
seized
m onopoly o f the landed nobility and Powers
^
every op portunity in E uropean countries, o o
offending
the crushing condition s im posed upon them in tnese on en din g
' “ t o a lf k t t e n t io n to tb e low w ages w blcb are paid In the p r o
t e c t ^ industries, so low as not to be sufficient to s u s t a in a u
A m erican fa m ily upon the w ages o f the he,.d o the fa m ily ,
w ho m ay be devoting all his tim e to that purpose, l l i e average
w age in the cotton and w ool industry w ill not exceed a d olla r
a day, and that is shown by our census tables, w h ich I submit.
Now, Mr. President, the protected industries have driven out
the American and substituted the foreigner. We have been
listening for years to talk about the protection of American
labor against the pauper labor of Europe; and yet our census
shows how shallow and how hollow that pretension ia, I call
your attention to what is shown by our census.
3266
<'
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
'Jra& 15,
The Boston Traveler in the article of June 2, 1909, ridicules
the argument of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. L odge] ,
and says:
Mr. OWEN. Certainly.
\
Mr. GALLINGER. H as the Senator the statistics for the
State of Wisconsin?
ion1?!6
™ S n^ W
mpi “ ,for, the mi]1 operatives of New Eng- — Mr. OWEN. The statistics w ill be found in the same tables
land, who
mnst not be deprived of their riirlit to work and w ages,* to which I have referred.
fatmr* nhrnnfl „maDufacturers, who must be protected against “ cheap
Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator has them not at hand?
labor abroad.
The mill operatives, for whom the Nahant Senator’s
eloquence was unloosed, are practically all Greeks Syrians, Poles, --M r . OWEN. Not at hand. I have them available, but not
i t w Dw S’ antl Italians> who have driven out every other kind of so as to easily read them.
f o ^ bS
Se,AUn<i?r Present wages in the cotton mills, to bring up a
I w ill say that, of course, on the eastern coast, with our
f Mr7
conditions is absolutely impossible. * * *
fuwi1'
defense of the cotton manufacturers, whose m ills are country inviting foreigners into this land we should expect a
W1th aliens on starvation wages, is paralleled in history only large percentage; and I do not speak that in any sense of re
hy the arguments made in parliament at the time England was a t- ,
^empting to abolish the slave trade, that if the bringing of black proach to those States. I, for one, am not at ail in favor of
people from A fiica to America and elsewhere was prohibited ship-, closing our ports by any ta x upon these poor souls who seek
owners vrould not find any use for their vessels, and that these slaver a refuge in our land from a monopoly which is worse by far
ships furnished the only market for decayed fish and other putrid
than that which we endure. I invite them, and bid them God
outlawed wllicl1 tbere would he a dead loss if the slave trade w as
speed and welcome. This Republic is under the deepest obliga
The Pittsburg Survey gives a tabulated map showing that the tions to those who have come from abroad and to tbeir children.
Carnegie m ills at Homestead, from which organized labor w as I honor them, and I am glad, as one American, to give them a
driven by pi irate armed m ilitary power in the Homestead cordial welcome. I wish they were better p a id ; and when they
riots, is filled w ith Slovaks, 6,477 of them ; with Poles, 611 in go W est and enter the fields of the West, perhaps they w ill find
number, with Bohemians and Germans, in another group; w ith conditions more congenial to human life and more profitable
Croatians, 1,249 in number; w ith Hungarians, 1,323 in number; and beneficial to them.
Mr. President, I am glad to see America, the land of liberty,
r?[fman?aiis>
in number; with Poles, 1,644 in number;
^ lt3.-iL lS Ua^iai^Sk ^ 7® in nuifiber. Austria-Hungary furnished made an asylum for tlie oppressed of other lands, and recognize
the fact that the United States is under enormous obligations
10,421; Russia, 2,577; etc.
. Representatives on behalf of these monopolies make “ impas to people who have come from foreign lands, and I only call
sioned appeals to protect the American workman against the attention to these figures to show that the plea of the monopo
foreign pauper labor which the monopolies have imported and lies that they are deeply concerned about high wages for the
are using wholesale w ith the effect of driving the native Amer American workman is so offensively hypocritical and absurd
that no words known to the English language are capable of
ican to despair.
Mr. President, examine the census of 1900, Volume I, pages describing it.
I have submitted Table 5, showing the wages of workmen in
cxxxi and 698, on population and see what it exhibits.
American industries; and I call your attention to the fact that,
Table of foreign born, etc.
except where they are organized, they are on almost starvation
wages. The papers were full a few days ago o f the slavery
Percent- j of white women brought into these protected factories from
age
of
j
White Total for
popula- ] Italy, sold by their kinspeople, and all their wages practically
popula eign born
Foreign
tion for- ; taken for their keep and to pay to the foreign home—a substan
Total
tion for
and of
Census 1900, Volume I.
bom
eign
bom tial exhibition of white slavery under the color of freedom and
popula
(cxxxi). eign par foreignand of i under the protection of the American flag, which ought not to
tion.
entage bom par
foreignj
(p. 698).
entage.
bom par- endure slavery either of the white man or the black man.
entage. j
W AGES I N
M
Massachusetts.....................
846,324
897,386 1,743,710 2,805,346
Rhode Island........................
134,519
428,556
140,292
274,811
Connecticut........................
238,210
908,420
282,245
520,455
New Y o r k ......................... 1,900,425 2,415,845
7,268,894
4,316,270
New Jersey_____ ___ ___
431,831
556,294
988,125 1,888,669
Pennsylvania.....................
985,250 1,430,028 2,415,278 6,302,115
UNPR O TEC TED
62.11
I respectfully submit a table (Exhibit 5) showing the wages
64. 11
57. Sf of workmen in the protected industries of every c la s s: In the
59.$
52.4| industry of making carp ets; of clothing; cotton goods; foundry
38.31 and machine shops; furniture; glass; fur hats; hosiery ana
ky tli® table which I submit that Massachusetts*
has 1,743,710 persons foreign born or of foreign-born parentages
out of 2,805,346 total population, having therefore 62.1 per een |
of people who are foreign born or of foreign-born parentage |
Rhode Island, in like manner, has 64.1 per cent of its popula&rxn foreign born or of foreign-born parentage; Connecticut
has 57.3 per cent of foreign born or of foreign-boni parent
age ; New York has 59.3 per cent of its people foreign born or
of foreign-born parentage; New Jersey has 52.4 per cent of its
population foreign born or of foreign-born parentage; thus disclosing in the completest manner the extent to which this use
\ o f foreign labor has driven out the American.
Mr. KEAN. W hat is the date of that?
f Mr. OWEN. The last census of 1900, to which I invite the
^senator’s prayerful attention.
Mr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oklahoma
yield to the Senator from Vermont?
— —... Mr. OWEN. W ith pleasure.
Mr. DILLINGHAM. I will be glad to have the Senator give,
if he has them, the figures of the percentage of foreign-born as
distinguished from their children.
✓ —Mr. OWEN. I have it, Mr. President, In the table which I
submit, giving the exact details.
I call attention to this matter because too much has behn
said in behalf of protecting the American laborer and keeping
out the pauper labor of Europe. The pauper labor of Europe
to-day fills the very factories of these protected monopolies, and
those same pauper laborers of Europe are coming into this coun
try at the rate of 100,000 a month. It is tim e that this hypoc
risy should cease.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oklahoma
yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
PRO TECTED IN D U S T R IE S LOW ER T H A N I N
IN D U S T R IE S .
knit goods; iron and steel, bar, and iron and steel, Bessemeriron and steel, blast furnace; lumber, paper, and wood pulppottery; printing and binding: shipbuilding-; silk goods; woolen •
and worsted goods. I have indicated in every case in these ?
tables the condition of labor organization.
It will be seen by tbe tables of Exhibit No. 5, in the grouped
industries, for example, that in 1907 burlers got 14 cents
an hour; dyers, 16 cents an hour; loom fixers (who must be
men of a high class), 28 cents an hour; spoolers, 13 cents an
hour; twisters, 12 cents an hour; weavers, Wilton (high-class i
experts), 30 cents an hour; weavers, ingrain, 15 cents an hour- i
winders, 13 cents an hour; and, except where the workmen must ■
be trained experts, their wages are very low.
Buttonhole makers (fem ale), 12 to 14 cents an hour; ex
aminers (fem ale), 11 tG 14 cents an hour; finishers, 10 to 13
cents an hour; pressers (m ale), 19 to 26 cents an hour; sew
ing-machine operators, 22 to 31 cents an hou r; carding-machine
tenders, 10 to 13 cents an hou r; dyers, 11 to 15 cents an hour •
loom fixers, 16 to 24 cents an hour; spinners, 9 to 13 cents an
hour; spinners (fem ale), 7 to 12 cents an hour; weavers
(m ale), 11 to 19 cents an hour; weavers (fem ale), 9 to 36
cents an hour; bleachers, 13 cents an hour; calenderers, 14
cents an hour; color mixers, 14 cents an hour.
In the hat business, calorers get
19 cents an hou r; fitters,12
cents an hour; flower blowers, 17
cents an hour; trimmers,15
cents an hou r; weighers, 13 cents an hour.
Silk goods.—Beamers get 19 cents an hou r; doublers, 11 cents
an hour; dyers, 19 cents an hour; loom fixers, 27 cents an hourpickers. 12 cents an hou r; quillers, 9 cents an hour; spinners’
10 cents an hour; weavers, female, 10 cents an hour; weavers’
female, 17 cents an hour.
Woolen goods.—Burlers get 11
cents an hour; carders,12
cents an hour; card strippers, 13
cents an hour; combers’12
cents an hou r; combers, female, 9 cents an hou r; dyers, 15 cents
an hour; loom fixers (experts), 26 cents an hour; male spinners
190S).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
11 cents an hour; male weavers (expert), 21 cents an hour;
leniale weavers (expert), 18 cents an hour.
„
must be remembered that these figures, low as they are,
fraii/0 - ™ lform]y Paid; that the laborer who misses an hour
m . Sickness or weakness, or who is thrown out of ernployrM„
the closing of the shop for repairs or for any other
the we.- rlllust .*/leu re]y upon his accumulation in savings out of
'lg?3 ha'd. The matter whi<lh I wish to call attention to is
nroteet/rf1- a Pl.etense ° f Protecting the American workman in
naid aniv
m ost-of whom are foreigners, they are
unprotected indnJtr-1* ° f tbe ,wages that workmen received in
interest ” in Hie 5les’ ,and "dth these pretenses of “ passionate
which oueh;- n,,t ,Alaencan workman is an unspeakable fraud
soberly and sL-iou°slv<>frn(IUml by lueu who regard this matter
better* interests of the fa
a standpoint of patriotism and the
A great ad win t / American Republic,
not in the “
,vvI.licb men have who are organized and
longer submit to a l u industries,” so called, is that they no
an eight-hour day
° US’ gnndiuS> sweat-shop hours, but have
The V rci/V nii1/ / ' J''Ir- President-----yield to the Se,,.!r/II] ENT; Does the Senator from Oklahoma
Mr (mrinr Uat01 f rom New Hampshire?
- Jfr ™ T
NT With pleasure.
wliat" part / f n, U‘ } VH1 the Senator kindly inform me in
read?
1 tbe c°untry the wages are paid that he has just
shows m T w ie J i^ m ,N%*L wh‘ch 1 submit with
matter,
wages paid in difterent parts of the country.
THE
o r g a n iz a t io n
of
Am e r ic a n
w orkm en
.
organi/‘i1i'm wfb ^ 3iave been gratified to observe the growing
United states O n l ? ” 6"! w bich.is steadilJT advancing in the
°f their interest?nln ?y,
organization and by the solidarity
a decent m ao et for
“iake «ffe.c tive its righteous hope for
Preseiircond H o n s V / V r r f ^ 11^ m tbis wa>r can men, under
for their iabor.
organized capital, obtain a fair return
It is true that sometimes the unwise members in
i ,
organizations compel their leaders to stand for
than the traffic will bear,” and in this case thev th ? bl£ her
selves out of employment and are thus com neiw V t ? them'
moderate in their demands It is true tlinr in
t0 be 1110re
| less men force their leaders into gross e r r o r T n d T o m i ^ t i f 4'
to make demands that are unreasonable but -hi
them
r a s - s r a
r
e
as
T l
rieoelve proper compensation and obtain decent h o i rs
II ey deserve the greatest credit for what they h a v ^ n n e in
obtaining the eight-hour rule among the organized trades I S
n promoting legislation to protect labor and to p rom ^ eT ts
d u tv ^ i’ • If Congress had heretofore seen more clearly its
S
Sary F ° rgauization wou,d llave been in large measure un
thought,lea orea n >z a tiou of labor be condem ned because of the
out of t h i i
crim inal a ct of some occasional individuals
the e h u ilh i j ? arni^ l » 11 would .b e a s reasonable to condemn
orimiii.. » because of the sins of its occasional members. The
r e s m lf l T ° f J abor sta n d s in th e m ain for good order, fo r
trv 1 A. aw ’ for Patriotism , for the upbuilding of our counthoU i 6 Preservation of hum an life and a decent rew ard to
ami i ° Perform th e h a rd est labors of life and bear th e sw eat
u dust, exposure and danger, of life's h a rd places,
for h ° g reat organizations a re a bulw ark to society and stand
whii h fu tu re stab ility and preservation of our institutions,
trn r t . ir chief antagonists, th e cap tain s of monopoly, who, I
bean'
soon be led by public opinion to b e tte r m ethods, have
to it °i en nitsled by avarice and greed, have been thus blinded
suirm * duty tow ard the w orking people, and a re blindly purof n" a policy whose resu lts constitute a menace to the stability
our present peaceful progress.
Ste i nk tbe less °* the management of the United States
+p e ’ an(l of the American Tobacco Company, and of the sugar
jj s3’ au<I the Cramp shipbuilding yards, and others, that they
la, So opposed organized labor that no member of organized
ot can be employed by these monopolies,
i ref. John It. Commons, of the University of Wisconsin (vol.
7’ Publications of the American Sociological Society, p. 141),
sa y s:
ZLV
annilf, .un,ons have practically disappeared from the trusts, and are disj f f r a g from the large corporation as they grow large enough to
lize minutely their labor. The organized workmen are found in
3267
the small establishments like the building trades or the fringe of inde
pendents on the skirts of the trusts; on the railw ays where skill and
responsibility are not yet displaced by division of labor ; in the mines
where strike breakers can not be shipped i n ; on the docks and other
places where they hold a strategic position.
A aron Jones, esq., m aster o f the N ational Grange, N ovem ber
11, 1903, at R ochester, N. Y., said :
Combinations and trust methods in the sale of supplies and in the
purchase of the products of the farm have in previous addresses been
set out. A striking and forceful illustration of these methods and their
effect on both the producer and the consumer is furnished by the
market reports of meats. October 10, 1902, market reports show th at
in one of the leading live-stock markets of the country the price of
hogs has been lowered during the year 30 per cent and the price of
pork raised 10 per cent. These manipulations add 40 per cent profit
to the meat trust, taking 30 per cent from the farmer and 10 per cent
from the consumer. Beef steers in the hands of farmers were reduced
20 per cent and dressed beef raised 10 per cent, thus adding 30 per
cent profit to the trust and taking 20 per cent from the farmer and 10
per cent from the consumer. More than $ lo 0,0l)u,uuu has been lost to
the live-stock industry in the past year by the manipulations of the
meat trust. This may in a measure explain how the meat trust may
contribute $50,000 to place the official management of a single city
under obligations to it. If the entire product of the farm wheat, corn,
hay, cotton, live stock, dairy, and fruit—-Is taken into account, farmers
have lost more than $700,000,000 in the P^st year through manipula
tions of combines and trusts, and because R im ers have not developed
and maintained a wise, safe, and we 11-guarded bus ness s ^
of selling the products of the farm. Farmers aav.eh?ls.° 13J f£fi,ed anottiei' great
loss in the purchase of supplies needed in this business.
M onopolies prefer unorganized labor ; they p refer that labor
should be helpless and incapable o f making effective,any dem and
fo r its com fort or convenience, or for its rights.
T he law should firm ly and unhesitatingly dem and an d re
quire o f labor, organized or unorganized, strict obedience to
the la w ; but it should also demand and require o f m onop oly
considerate and decent treatm ent o f labor and o f its righ ts both
as producer and consum er.
, .
T he tables indicating the wages o f
1'^ ^ ig h ta riff industries are taken from_ Bulletin No. <7 o f the U nited
S T S n B S J £ Ut t e chairman1 o^/the Committee on F inance to exnlain the astonishing parallel between the low rate o f w ages
U k l to people In protected industries and tlie high w ages p aid
s a S c t 7 r y n0e V X a S
can the Senator from R h od e
homW?eaT“ S ° f
gratn, 1 6 c e n t s : J 'g ^ l ^ f r o m ^ R h o d e Island explain w h y th e
I lo w does tbe Smiat
B oston and the w ork ers
plasterer receives
as m uch and do
in cotton goods can not possibly iccc
not average one-third a s m uch
^
6Q centg ;m h(m p; the
In good o
•
hour - the plumber, 55 cents an h o u r ;
tile setter gets W cento an hour , £ £ £
50 cent
th
[
cents; and side by side
w U h ^ h e ^ ^ n p r o te rt^ lld u s tr ie s
the c a r in g -m a c h in e ^tender
m the cotton g oods P ^ e d xerg o-i cents; the spinners, 13 and
1 5 c en ts, the lo
^ ^ cen ts ; the w eavers, 20 cen ts;
14 c en ts, the mu e *1
’
tlie bleachers, 14 cen ts; the
the fem ale w eavers,
je dyers, 15 cen ts; the m ale enc olor m ixers, 14 cent ,
_intera 44 cen ts; and this rem arkgravers, 4o c e n t s ; the i .
P .
all the w ay through these
able com parison is m •
]al)()r itself, b y its ow n organiza-
dyers,
“ o T h a f p r e v e n " e d itse lf from ieiu g pluudered by the em ployer.
PR O TEC TIO N R S I T . 3 P .R C T .C E O . 3
AX O P EN , ORVIOOS FRACO.
Tf is tim e that the New England Senators were dropping the
mask o ^ u p e d o r k l u d g e "and o f m ysterious learning w ith
T h 'e w o ^ i e m ^ f ™ r S i o n . us it is practiced, is detection .
Tim infinite pains taken by the com m ittee in charge o f th is b ill
to 'V ir id s h M e m b e r s o f this body w ith all sorts o f data except
the vital fa cts w ith regard to “ the difference m cost o f p rod u c
tion at hom e and abroad,” does not argue w e
or th eir ju d g
ment or fo r their sin cerity in dealing with this question.
I am m ore than w illin g to believe that they have m erely fo l
low ed a beaten track and trodden the pathw ay o f greatest con
venience, o f easy good nature, but I can not but feel th at a
generous com plaisance to those w h o have contributed to th eir
su ccessful cam paigns is also responsible fo r the lack o f this
essential inform ation. I w ish to m ake record here that the in
form ation w h ich I have obtained w ith regard to th is m atter is
due to no effort o f theirs. I have been com pelled as a M em ber
3268
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
of this body to dig out laboriously the information which I lay
before the Senate.
How does the Senator from Rhode Island explain the fact
that in the unprotected industries of New England, of transporta lion for example, the station agents get an average daily
pay of $2.03, while a carding machine tender in the protected
cotton-goods industry receives 13 cents an hour, and the dyers 15
cents an hour, and the spinners 13 cents an hour, and the weav
ers 19 cents an hour.
How does he explain that enginemen in the unprotected in
dustry on the railway service receive $3.78 a day and conduc
tors $3.26 a day, and in the protected industry of printing tex
tiles the bleachers receive 13 cents an hour, the calenderers 14
cents an hour, the color mixers 14 cents an hour, and dyers 15
cents an hour?
How does the Senator from Rhode Island explain why it is
that in the unprotected industry of railways in New England
firemen recei\ e $2.20 a day, trainmen $2.32 a day, carpenters
$2.25 a day, section foremen $2.24 a day, laborers $1.85 a day,
when in the protected industry of hosiery and knit goods the
knitters receite only 20 cents an hour for men and 13 cents an
hour for women, loopers 14 cents an hour, the menders 13 cents
an hour, the men pressers 17 cents and the women pressers
10 cents an hour?
And how do these higher wages in unprotected industries con
trast with the blast-furnace men and cinder snappers receiving
15 cents an hour, the hot-blast men 19 cents an hour, the keep
ers helpers 17 cents an hour, and the top fillers 17 cents an
hour?
The plain truth is that in the unprotected industries of trans
portation, as shown by the compilation of wages by the Inter
state Commerce Commission and the labor in the unprotected
industries of the building trades, compiled by the American
Federation of Labor, by W illiam J. Spencer, secretary, is far
better paid than in the protected industries of the cotton mills,
the hosiery mills, the woolen mills, and iron mills, and other
factories.
The tables submitted of the wages of the building trades,
which a ie unprotected, show that they receive a wage over 200
per cent higher than the wages in the protected industries, and
the reason for this is not difficult to see. Labor in the build
ing trades and in the railroad business is comparatively easy
of organization, because the men in the railroad and building
trades are out of doors and can be reached and talked to and
organized. They are not locked up inside of the jail-like in
closures of private factories, where it is almost impossible to
■ reach the employees or to organize them.
Labor has rarely succeeded in thoroughly organizing itself in
j any
tlie great manufacturing industries, which are usually
J controlled by monopolies and mechanical corporate power.
/
Organized labor was practically driven out of the shops of
I Andrew Carnegie and of the United States Steel Corporation,
( American Tobacco Company, Cramps’ shipyards, and various
V o th e r s of the existing monopolies.
^ s '*Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President-----The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oklahoma
yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
— Mr. OWEN. Certainly.
Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator has put in tables—I have
not seen them—showing the wages in protected and unprotected
industries. In the New York Sun of the 13th instant there is a
dispatch from London giving the wages paid in unprotected
industries in Great Britain. Is the Senator willing that I should
have this inserted in the R ecord?
Mr. OWEN. I am perfectly willing that it should be inserted
in my remarks.
Mr. GALLINGER. Thank you.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. W ithout objection, it will be in
serted.
r Mr. OWEN. I w ill state to the Senator from New Hampshire
/ that in my examination of this matter I have tried not to make
/ a partial statem ent giving the facts favorable to my view 'and
/ those unfavorable to the other side, but have tried to give, in a
/ just measure, both sides, because the only purpose which I have
j in view is to arrive at the truth and to make it manifest. I do
\ not know what the quotation from the Sun is nor its so u rc e d
nor its accuracy.
Mr. GALLINGER. It is a dispatch bearing a London date, I
w ill say to the Senator.
Mr. OWEN. I have heard of dispatches from London which
were not reliable.
J u n e 15,
The matter submitted by Mr. Gallingeb is as fo llo w s:
WOMEN ON STARVATION PAT— REVELATIONS OP THE “ SWEATING ” SYSTEM
IN LONDON— FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY A POOR SEAMSTRESS’S ATTEMPT
AT SUICIDE— HOME WORKERS, 62 CENTS TO $1.10 A WEEK--- AVI RAGB
WEEKLY PAY OP ENGLISH WOMEN $1.75.
[From New York Sun, June 13, 1909.]
London, June s.
A poor little seam stress attempted suicide in London recently. She
jumped into the Thames and was ignominiously fished out, not drowned
and not in the least repentant. When questioned as to reasons for her
act she had only one to give. She simply could not keep body and soul
together by working her hardest at her trade, and in utter fatigue she
had decided to end her struggles.
There was nothing very new in her story, but when she explained
th at she alw ays had plenty of work to do, the only difficulty being to
live on the prices paid for her labors, London was roused from its
apathy long enough to protest against the “ sw eating ” of women thug
revealed.
The House of Lords once defined “ sweating ” as a condition under
which work is carried on in insanitary surroundings and for low wages.
There are those who would add th at it is a condition of labor which
does not give the laborer, in return for a fair day’s work, enough to
m aintain him self and his fam ily in decency and comfort.
In England it is women who are the greatest sufferers from sweating.
Their average wage, taking it all the year round and allow ing for sick
ness and slackness, is not much more than $1.75 a week. The Lanca
shire textile trade average is $3.75, and in some districts as much as
$6; but th is comparatively high rate is pulled down by the E ast End
home worker, who earns anything from 62 cents to $1.10 a week.
In the unskilled women’s trades there is no standard by which wages
are computed. For instance, one famous firm of cocoa manufacturers
pays women for filling hags w ith cocoa 28 cents a thousand hags, and
exactly the same work is done for 16 cents for another firm. In East
London there is a firm whose girls earn $3.50 a week by packing tea.
In the same locality there is another firm, the head of which is a wellknown sportsman and yachtsman, where the earnings of the girls
average only $1.87 a week.
The manager of a tin-plate factory recently fixed time rates at $1.50
a week for his women workers, and he openly gave the reason that
they had taken advantage of piecework rates to make too much. Some
had earned $4 !
The average wage paid to w aitresses in tea shops or restaurants
throughout the country does not exceed $2.50 a week. On this the
girls must keep up a neat and well-dressed appearance. Then wages
are likely to be interfered w ith and even, if “ necessary,” reduced.
Many firms don’t pretend to pay their girls a living wage. The head
of a large company was asked recently how he expected the girls in
his employment to live on $1.50 a week.
“ i don’t expect it,” he answered. “ Immediately we hear that a girl
has lost her father or that she has no outside means of support, she
is discharged.”
This same firm employs w hat it calls “ half-day w aitresses.” They
work from 11.30 a. m. till 6.30 p. m. for $1 a week. All tips are
forfeited.
The lot of the home worker is the worst of all. Miss Mary MacArthur secretary of the Women’s Trade Union League, gave a picture
of the home worker in the E ast End In an interview.
“ So terrible is their life th at I wonder th at they take the trouble
to exist at all,” she said. “ Here is a single room in a Stepney slum
The furniture consists of a table, a chair, and a bed. The unfinished
trousers at which the woman stitches serves as a blanket at night.
“ She slaves from daybreak until her eyes fail, and she never earns
more than 5 shillings a week. She sustains herself mainly, alm ost en
tirely upon weak tea. Some days she drinks 14 cups, making the same
tea leaves do service again and again. That is one of the women slaves
of England, and there are thousands in sim ilar plight.
“ I know many women who make men’s shirts at 1 shilling or 9 pence
a dozen
I have even found the actual worker making at 8 pence a
dozen shirts which had originally been given out at 1 shilling a dozen
“ There is a girl in W oolw ich; she has one child, aged 2 years, en
tirely dependent upon her. She is a shirt finisher and does buttoning
and buttonholing by hand. She is paid 5 shillings a dozen for collars
Remember, th is is high-class work. Cotton costs her from 3 pence to
4 pence a week. Her average earnings are 4 shillings 6 pence a we<»k
or from one-half pence to three-fourths pence an hour.
“ Every day she has to spend an hour and a half in fetching her
work as it is only given out in small quantities. Sometimes she has
worked with hardly any break for tw enty hours, from 6 a. m. until
2 a. m. the following morning. The rent of the room is 1 shilling and
6 pence a week.
“ All this she told the parliamentary committee. The members of
Parliam ent were aghast. Some were incredulous. ‘ B ut how do you
live you and the c h ild ? ’ asked one member of Parliament. ‘ We don’t
liv e ’’ the woman replied, w ith a passion in her tone I had never heard
before. ‘ Often we have no food at all.’ ”
Miss MacArthur contends th at goods are not sold any cheaper when
made bv sweated labor. She tells of a fur-lined motor coat, marked at
*105 which was made for $1.88 by sweated lab or; and of a $5.25 ni«-htKregs’ for which the home worker who made it got 5 cents— 63 cents"r0r
dozen of these nightdresses. The employer of the girls who made
hese nightdresses said he could not pay more, as there was no profit
in his trade.
There are many persons who are struggling to organize and help the
women workers of England. There is a scheme for a trades board
__v , s o V i o l l
which
shall
fiv
fix
n
a
n im u m
le g a l m
m iinim
um .
w h .o' P
inrf t h o r p n r o o t h e r
wage, fand1
there a™ other
n i *A n r. ti U .‘ . ’
p ro p o sitio n s
which will help to do away with the present sweating system, if thev
are ever put into practice.
J
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire
might have struck out the London heading and inserted New
York, Pittsburg, or Jersey City, and the cruel oppression o f
r
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
labor by organized capital, uncontrolled by law, would not be
overdrawn, as I shall abundantly show before I conclude.
The Senator and the party of which he is a conspicuous
leader have a duty to perform in which they seem strangely/
oblivious.
Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President-----th e VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oklahoma
yield to the Senator from Utah?
OWEN.^ With pleasure.Mi. SMOOT. The Senator has made a comparison about a
man, a bricklayer------
Mr’ SMOOt ' 0 t]R'. ° r a Plumbcron lmiir , vT-i
,a an ,JnProtected industry, receiving 60 cents
gets 14 cents.6 is that iffoir^ c° doeS.
in a wooIen miU
n w i ' v t , u a lair comparison?
^comparison hag not been H £ iS
^
comparisOD- That
SMOOl. The
Senator just made a comparison that
even wmsn
t, .senator
tnat was
onu
mill and
an 'that)
* lat’ because he spoke of burlers in a woolen
Mr
ts.
Mr. OWEN
o w e ! ' l l recel7 ln* °only
“,y 11
11 ^
" nnts'
and
to an r a w 1 ga,ve’ m ext-ens°. the wages paid to burlers
in
cotton
mHi1,01 stati*
(illlAJ1oyees
incoR
on^uillT
*^cyees^ iu
in woolen m ills and in silk mills and
whether tim H’ S at*ng what it was, whether they were male or
parison is , y were female. I have given them all, and the com----• J ist which I have made, substantially, and no comburly°brici^
~ ator
suggest of a little ;irl and a big,
eral conmo,.;ImiS°,n’ wll° weighs 247 pounds, will affect the gau- Mi s m m™ la th° lig h te s t degree.
ator makes * , . at is exactly the comparison which the SenI mav
111 relation
to —the wages paid here for weavers,
a
sa v V
-------—
"country
--------- .m avearns
say
ITJ do?. notf, iin,m„
_ ___________j.
... *!.!„
who
kuow ao ......._
weaver
in any part of
this country
I have mar.
inanv +
t■i m l -------------aU aiU0Ullt«**as
> tLat stated by the
^ Senator.
Senator,
the higher
hl"bor ?i
weavers carn
earn as
as high
high as
as ^
§3 aa day’
day, and
and
the
thetimes
Weave”
turor
tae wage they earn the better it is for the manufacMr n 2 v they are a11 on Piecework.
Census in this ^ tt>S ^ Senator challenge the accuracy of the
3269
LABOR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHARE EQUITABLY WITH THE EMPLOYERS
IN THE VALUES THAT LABOR HAS INCREASINGLY CREATED.
In Volume VIII, page 982, of the Twelfth Census, 1900, is the
following table. It shows that labor received in 1850, 23.21 per
cent of the total value of products, while in 1900 it received
only 17.8 per cent of the product, although the per capita in
crease in production M7a s greater by 130 per cent in 1900 than
in 1850.
Year.
Average num Total annual
ber of wagewages.
earners.
Total annual
value of
products.
957,059
5,321,389
$230,755,404
2,330,578,010
$1,019,106,616
13,039,279,506
Average an
nual wage.
Per cent of
product paid
In wages.
Per capita in Per capita in
crease in pro
crease in
duction in the
wages in
50 years.
50 years.
1850......................
1900......................
Year.
Average per
capita pro
duction.
Per cent.
j1850......................
1900......................
23.21
17.80
$247
437
From Exhibit 1 labor shows
$1,004
2,451
Per cent.
130
diminishing wage as com-
per cent of the produet In 1SP0,
per c en t m i w u , -*o.u
-— ~ ,
__.
^
Per cent
In the iron a n d steel industries labor receiv
i of rhe product in 1900, 22.1 per cent in 190o.
i In the leather industries labor received 20.1 per cent of the
product in"l890, 1G.9 per cent in I960, 16.5 per cent in 1905.
in paper and printing industries labor received 26.5 per cent
in 1890, 23.1 per cent in 1900, 21.6 per cent m R u.
In metal and metal produ cts labor received;20.4 per cent of
as t o’i
1 challenge the figures the Senator gave here the gross product in 1890, 12.9 per cent m 1900, 12.7 per cent
Mr o w n * Pai<i to woolen weavers in this country.
States con
« ’M'en I commend the Senator to the United 111 In'tobacco industries labor received 21 per cent in 1890, 18.9
pute tiu, S*jS’ . om which the table was taken, and he may dis
can not p . ° ritative tables of the Federal Government; but he ^ L b T r lms^OTstantly grown in efficiency, bu^Jias not been
reports orroct Lie accurady of my quotation from the census able to share equitably m the value it has c ^ a te 4
SemiD
t am not saying that the figure quoted by the
that we XVaS QO*
from some table, but I do jKisitively say
QuotedeaV G I"S
C0lmtry are not paid the price the Senator
Utah
I appeal from the evidence of the Senator from
and ’ f S*u si)ec*al pleader, to the evidence of the federal census
Cp 0 y 10 London Hoard of Trade, and prefer to take the
hn, i"S °* ^ 10 United States and the official figures to his offaand comments.
— m 'UER. Mr. President-----w 1/ o*VEN. I cordially yield to the Senator from Iowa,
g r‘ TOLLIVER. I have been very much interested in the
that t?FS r u s t i c s and iigures, but it has often occurred to me
are . i industries to which he refers as unprotected industries
T7n 't0? ,’ *ho oniy Perfectly protected industries we have hi the
h0 ',
States, for the reason that if a man is to build a brick
eartT! Uei’e at a11 ll(i has no competition from any quarter on
u, .
A. man making a horseshoe has to be protected by a
nat
* a niau siloeing a horse has an absolute, perfectly
an Vlr R Pr°tection, because the horse has to be shod where he is
d not in some other country, and no competition, direct or inirect, beats upon those occupations which are naturally and
Perfectly protected.
^____
' Mr. OWEN. I think there is force in the observation of the
senator from Iowa, and I shall not quarrel with it, but content
jhyself with saying that like industries abroad are also much
hettor paid than factory labor. But I do call attention to the
*aet that these men who are in the railway service and in the
unprotected building trades and not in the business of manu
facturing woolen or cotton or flax textiles are receiving a very
ttiucli higher reward than those who are in those industries,
ahd I have shown by these tables that they could be paid a
ttaich larger price without depriving the factories of a just re
gard. Jf there were some competition, it Mould be far better
tor labor; and if there Mere some measure o f competition in this
country, i believe it would be better for the manufacturers
themselves.
canita increase o f ‘the product of labor by weight was 50 per
^ n j f b y value, 33.5 per cent; while the increase m wages is
only’l l per cent.
Year.
Average
Total
number of T o tal annual Total value weight of
w age-earn w ages paid. of products. products
ers em
in to n s.
ployed.
171,181
242,740
1890.
1905.
Year.
$89,273,956
141,439,906
Per cnp'ta
increase in
production
in 15 years
in values.
$478,687,519
905,854,152
per capita Per capita
jncrease in increase in Average
pro(juction wages in 15 weekly
wage.
Py weight,
years.
Percent, j Percent.
::::: .......... 33^5
16,204,478
34,844,933
Per cent.
50.5 .......... ii.5
$10.02
11.20
These figures might be multiplied indefinitely in all of the
onopoly-controlled industries.
I submit a table of the wages in ^ woolen and cotton goods
l actories of NeMTEngland. It sbons that thej do not le c e n e to
day an average wage of e x ce e d in g a dollar a day, a fact of
necial interest in connection with this controversy where the
Schedules are supposed to be written for the protection of
abor.
'
5270
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
J u n e 15,
W ages I860 and 1900 compared in woolen and cotton goods factories of
Neio England.
the output of the American laborer is twice as much as in
Euro]>e.
The spinners, for example, in Germany in 1005, at Mulhausen,
Actual received from $6.57 to $7.30 per week. In France they received
in
Value Pounds
Number
$5.91
and in the United States $4.12. The weavers, on the con
Wages
Value of of out of cotton crease
Tear.
of em Wages.
per
in out trary, received in Germany $4.02 to $4.75; in France, $4.48 to
ployees.
capita. Product. put per
used.
put by $5.19; in the United Kingdom, $5.11 to $7.06; and in the United
capita.
weight. States, $8.29. So that the weavers in our country received
double as much as they did in Germany, and the spinners in
Cotton:
Per et. our country received a smaller money wage than in either
1860........
81,403 $16,720,920
$205 $79,359,000
$794 283,701,306
Germany or France.
-------- ——
331
1900......... 164,914 56,258,202
341 191,690,913
1,162 940,908,114
Mr. SMOOT. Does the table show that the weavers receive
Woolen:
less than the spinners in Germany?
25,583 6,144,847
1860____
240 47,722,814
1,474
82,472 31,230,772
1900.........
378 161,566,277
1,934
“- Mr. OWEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SMOOT. "Whoever prepared the table does not know a
thmg about manufacturing, and it can not possibly be true.
This schedule shows that, counting the best paid labor, the
annual average wage of the employees in the cotton and woolen /'jV Ir. OWEN. The Senator from Utah, having corrected tli£A
m ills do not exceed $1 a day, and that, therefore, the pretense United States census with regard to employees in cotton facto- \
of better paid labor in the United States in the cotton and ries, may now correct the tables used by the.B oard of Trade of
woolen mills, at least, is not true, because such wages do not the United Kingdom in their report to Parliament, from which
greatly exceed the w ages in Europe; and measured by p u r e h a s - r 1S
I know ju st as well as I know I am alive that
ing power, probably do not exceed them at all; and measured
by the output of American labor, which is twice as efficient as there is no country that can employ weavers at a less price
European labor, the American labor is not as well paid as Euro than they can spinners. Spinners are boys and girls. W eavers
are men and women. It can not be possible. It is a mistake.
pean labor. The American manufacturer gets all the net profit.
It has been shown in th is debate what the enormous profits of / Mr. OWEN. I again appeal from the personal assurances of
the cotton and woolen m ills have been, and our statistics clea rly , the Senator from Utah [Mr. S m oot ] to the records of the Board
demonstrate the inequitable manner in which these profits have? of Trade of London and of the United States census, from which
been proportioned between the American monopolists and his these figures are accurately taken; and I call attention to the
fact that the Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the
foreign-born workmen.
Committee on Finance, when he w as giving these tables, con
fined him self to those parts of the tables favorable to his conten
AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN WAGES IN PROTECTED INDUSTRIES COMPARED.
tion and failed to insert those parts of the tables which were un
I submit this comparison of wages in the United States, Ger favorable to his contention, and such a leadership I neither
many, France, and the United Kingdom, with the proper au approve nor follow.
thorities, showing that the w ages paid in the United States in
These tables show the differences which I have pointed out,
the textile industry do not very greatly exceed those paid and they speak for themselves and are easily capable of their
in Germany, France, and England, w hile it is conceded that verification.
.....■
W ages in te x tile in d u stry in G ermany, France, U nited K ingdom , and U nited S tates.
Germany, 1905, Mul
hausen.
/
France, 1905, Lille.
In the protected industries.
Weekly
pay.
Hours
work.
Weekly
pay.
United
United j
Kingdom.
Weekly pay, States.
Hours.,
Average,
(W. K.
Hours 1906
1904.
Preston).
work.
COTTON INDUSTRY.
Spinners:
Male.............................................................................................................................................| $6.57-17.30
Female......................................................................................................................................... I......................
Weavers:
M ale....
4.02- 4.75
Female.
Piecers................................................................................................................................................ j 4.42- 4.87 |
Laborers.............................................................................................................................................|
3.81 I
Dyers.
3.65- 4.62
Mule spinners.
WOOLEN INDUSTRY.
Spinners..................
Weavers (Aschen):
Male..................
Female.............
Combers (Leipzig):
Male..................
Female.............
Dyers (Leipzig)__
Weavers:
S ilk Male __
Female.
Velvet.........
R ibb onM ale....
Female.
Dyers.................
$5.91
66 ■ 4.48- 5.19
66
66
58J-63
Mulhausen.
7.20- 7.79
3.51- 5.19
4.10
4.66- 5.25
11.78-12.45
60 $5.11—
$7.06
60
60
60-66
60
Roubaix.
6.22- 6.81
5.11- 5.84
4.38
4.38
5.60
65
3.79- 3.91
8.52-10.95
Bradford.
1.95- 2.68
$4.12
5.16
64.55
61.01
8.29
7.58
60.42
60.13
6.89
11.24
62.48
59.32
6.52
58.34
3.16- 4.14
9.87
8.79
58.47
57.57
4.87- 5.60
2.68- 3.41
5.84
7.11
5.49
7.86
5&33
57.40
59.11
9.74
8.19
56.52
57.82
10.93
9.84
10.98
52.98
50.71
55.05
SILK INDUSTRY.
Crefeld, 1905.
|
Lyon, 1905.
5.11-5.84!
58-58]; 3.20-3.51
60
5.84- 6.57
7.30
58-584 4.10- 4.97
'
58-58] a3.51- 4.66
60 ! 5.84- 6.81
a St. Etienne.
N o t e .— In 1905 the wages received a t St. Etienne, France, by ribbon w eavers varied from $3.51 to
100 per cent more
in piecework, from
A uthority for
A uthority for
Working Classes,
V
than this. In August, 1907, it w as
one-half to two-thirds the value of
United States figures: B ulletin o f
foreign figures: Cost o f Living in
U nited Kingdom, 1908; Report o f
$4.06 per week. In 1906 It was
from 30 per cent to 50 per cent higher than in 1905.These weavers received as
their product.
the Bureau of Labor, No. 59, July, 1905.
German Towns (1 9 0 8 ); Cost of Living in French Towns (1 9 0 9 ); Cost of Liv>ng
Board of Trade to Parliam ent.
over
pav
v
of
I exhibit a comparison of wages in the United States, Germany, which present a very much more favorable wage to the unpro
ranee, and the United Kingdom in the nonprotected industries, tected American workingman and much more favorable hours.
1909.
3271
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Com parison of wages in U nited Sta tes, G erm an y, F ra n c e , and U nited K ingdom ,
Berlin (1905).
Class of labor.
(In the unprotected industries.)
Weekly
wages.
C a r p e n te r s ............
P lu m b e rs .
Painters.
Laborers (tailding trades').........................................................................................
Hod carriers (building trades)................................................................................
S9.51
9.51
7.77
7.81
53.)
53)
52
G.25
8.86
S3)
53)
j
}
f
50 (
1
50
50
50
50
(
50
f
50
j
50
f
50
54
f
50 j
$10. G5
11.1G
7.10
7.10
H o ld e rs
T u rn e rs . .
Smiths.
P a tte r n m ak e rs.
8.77-9.01
Brewers.
Compositors (printing)
8.73
5.11-5.84
S t r e e t s w e e p e rs
58£-G0
10.56
9.49
54
63
Weekly
wages.
Number
of hours.
Weekly
wages.
Number
of hours.
United States—North
Atlantic (1904).
Paris (Oct., 1905).
London (Oct., 1905).
Number
of hours.
Weekly
wages.
Number
of hours.
$9.35
10.50
9.35
9.35
9.35
5.84
5.84
a ll. 97
GO
60
60
54
60
60
60
60
a 11.23
60
}
15.34
56.07
a 12.73
60 |
60
60 }
CO
48 \
42
60
16.73
57.03
17.87
17.54
18.24
9.50
56.25
58.20
52.16
58.28
a 12. GO
6.43
<11.09
d12.86
6.59
$25.52
18.03
46.92
47.89
20. GO
16.95
9.50
13.88
17.17
}
48.00
48.40
54.70
46.72
56.38
<»Night.
Piecework.
6 Time work.
Day.
TTn4+3 eS®rt
board of trade : Cost of living in German towns, 1908; cost of living in French towns, 1909; cost of living of working classejs,
un ited Kingdom, 1908.
—
compare the dates as nearly as they coukl be compared, and
rri1” GALLi X G E It. Mr. President------
■vini.iA'IpE-PilESIDENT. I>oeH tlte Senator from Oklahoma
y nr
J .le Senator from New Hampshire?
air. OWEN. With pleasure.
, f r’ GALLINGEE. I w ill ask the Senator if he has cone(1 ijulletin No. 80, published in January, 1909? It is four
tn f
a er than the one he quoted from. If the Senator will
10 I)age GS, he w ill find that in Dundee male shifters are
A ! \ mg ^0r
a week in the textile mills, and male preP m s are ■working for $2.51 a week. It seems to be an exl >l0A wage- Therc is nothing like it in this
nfi is of
yet th a t iB ™ the unprotected textile
Commissioner of Labor. aUd fr° m * reCeUt 1’ublicuti,,n by our
-^ M r. OWEN. I have these tables o f 1904 and 1905, which
liave not attempted to compare the tables of Great Britain,
made by the board of trade there, with the tables made at a j
very different period. I have compared them as nearly as they'
were available o f adjacent years. But, I w ill say to the Sen-;
ator from New Hampshire, that the question of the difference
in the cost of production at home and abroad is easily mscovered, and he illustrates that he knows how to do it.
I now take a ta b le-E x b ib it No. 6, the wages and cost
living in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Fiance show lr
the average family income, the cost of liyn g, the aiticles <
food, and so forth. I ask that it may be printed m my remarl
'V1As°Exhibit^No. G, I submit the wages and cost of living in
United Kingdom, Germany, and France.
E x h ib it G.
Under $6.08.
Limit weekly income.
Number of returns.... .................
Average family wocWy income
Average number of children.. ..
$6.08 and under $7.40.
$9.73 and over.
$7.40 and under $8.52.
United Ger
King many. France.
dom.
United Ger
United Ger
United Ger
King many. France. King many. France. King many.
dom.
dom.
dom.
United Ger
King many.
dom.
1,951
737
596
$12.65 $11.85
4.4
as
$12.88
$1.05
37.76
$1.09
38.21
$1.15
35.89
$1.55
8.57
$1.75
11.87
$0.32
11.35
$0.09
11.55
$0.19
11.06
$0.19
$0.34
m3
$0.24
14.4
$0.26
10.2
$0. 33
10.34
$0.40
14.45
$0.22
$0.41
12.63
$0.44
16.10
$0.27
9. 73
$0.12
$0.10
$0.16
0.60
1.02
$0.13
0.77
$0.19
0.77
$0.14
0.75
$0.50
2.59
$0.62
2.87
$0.72
a 45
$0.55
2.80
$0.90
a 90
$0.90
4.23
$0.72
a 62
$0.21
23 81
SO. 19
$0.09
$0.10
14.64
$0.33
$0.10
80.20
15.87
$0.23
$ 0.21
$0.23
24.63
$0.11
$0.28
19.93
$0.32
$0.14
$0.29
33.55
$0.27
$0.11
$0.10
$0.18
15.85
$0.35
SO. 24
20.50
$0.48
$.0.13
$0.33
$0.21
$0.20
0. 55
$0.85
$0.24
$0.21
0.46
$0.30
$0.30
0.82
$0.22
4.97
$0.41
$0.08
$0.10
1. 98
$0.17
$0.10
SO. 12
1. 72
$0.02
$0.42
$0.23
5.21
$0.40
$0.14
$0.11
$0.20
$0.13
1.83
$0.03
$0.53
$0.30
G. 70
$0.62
$0.18
$0.13
2.67
$0.24
$0.31
261
$5.20
3.1
1,065
$5.30
2.3
614
$5.55
1.77
289
$6.56
3.3
1,329
$6.59
2.5
931
$6.73
1.80
410
$7. 77
32
1,223
$7.75
2.5
1,065
$7.87
1.92
382
$8.89
692
$8.92
2.8
821
$9.08
2.13
$0.74
2R 44
$0.64
23.04
SO. 73
24.10
SO. 81
29.97
$0. 70
25.05
$0. 76
24.58
$0.80
29.44
$0.74
26.06
$0.82
26.19
$0.82
29.99
$0.83
29.83
$0.89
27.62
$0.79
6.42
$0.15
$0.99
5.83
$0.06
$0.92
5.55
$1.01
7.57
$0.18
$1.18
6.60
SO. 06
$1.12
6.49
$1.25
a go
$0.20
$1. 41
7.82
$0. 06
$1.38
7.81
$1.32
9.25
$0.24
$1.57
8.77
$0.07
§0.12
6.2
$0.11
6.9
$0.13
6.9
$0.17
87
$0.15
9.2
$0.15
81
SO. 22
11.3
80.17
10.2
$0.18
9.3
$0.24
12.0
$0.16
5.54
$0.25
10.57
$0.15
581
$0.23
7.72
SO. 31
12.30
$0.18
6.88
$0. 31
9.85
$0.34
12.83
$0.20
7.6
$0.10
0.07
$0.06
a 4o
$0.08
0.46
$0.11
a 70
$0.08
0. 46
$0.10
0.55
80.12
0.79
$0.09
0.62
$0.12
0.68
$0.41
2.05
$0.49
2.50
$0.42
2.25
$0.51
2.47
$0.60
2.79
$0.47
2.41
$0.58
2.67
$0.05
3 07
*0.18
14.05
$0. 10
$0.09
$0.20
26.04
$0.11
$0.07
$0.15
12. ::o
SO. 24
SO. 08
$0.20
15 84
SO. 14
$0.10
$0.21
23 96
$0. 16
$0.09
$0.16
13 93
80.28
10
$0.21
16.11
$0.20
$ a i2
$0.23
$0.15
$0.15
0.44
SO. 29
$0.19
80.16
0.46
$0.16
3. 87
SO. 26
$0. 03
$0.09
1.83
SO. 13
$0.09
*a u
1. 48
$0.01
$0.22
$0.20
4.62
$0.33
$0.05
$0.10
1.96
$0.17
$0.13
$0.11
1.50
$0.01
$0.32
34
2.91
COST OF LIVING.
Bread and flour:
Cost.................................. .........................
MeaVln0Un*” ................................ pounds..
Cost............................................................
Amount.................................... pounds..
Fish, cost
Eggs:
Cost..........................................................
Milk:
Cost......................................................... .
Amount....................................... pints..
Cheese:
Cost..................................., ....................
Amount.................................... pounds..
Butter, lard, etc.:
Cost..........................................................
Amount....................................pounds..
Potatoes:
Cost................................... r......................
Amount.................................... pounds..
Fruit, cost.......................................................
Macaroni, oat meal, etc., cost........................
Coflee, cocoa, and tea:
Cost................................ ; .......................
Amount....................................pounds
Sugar:
Cost.................. ........................................
Amount.................................... pounds..
Sirups, condiments, etc., cost.......................
Meals away from home..................................
Total expenditure for food:
SO.
2.14
$0.18
$3.50 $3 44 $3.38 $4.34 $4.10 $3 94 $5.05 $4. 58 $4.56 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ $5.14
$182. 00 $178.86 $175.70 $225. 68 $213 20 $204.88 1262. 60 $23316 $237.12 $282.36 6267.28
8.1
0.55
$ 2.10
$0.12
$5. 09 $7. 22 $ 6.66
.......... $375. 44 $340. 32
X otf. __Totals are found by converting the totals in foreign money into United States money, and may differ from true totals
$2.11
ia4
1.00
$0.16
2.22
$0.04
$0.75
$6.81
Authority for above table: Report of an inquiry by the Board of Trade for both Houses of the English Parliament, 1908, as to cost of living
In German towns; 1909, as to cost of living in French towns.
vr*
3272
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
J u n e 15,
As Exhibit No. 7, I submit the income and cost of living in the. United States of workingmen’s fam ilies.
E x h ib it 7.
'Workingmen’s fam ilies, income and cost of livin g in th e U nited S ta tes, 1801.
Number Average
of fami
size of
lies
family.
noted.
Geographical division.
Average Income of
family.
Annual.
Weekly.
Average expenditure
of family.
Average expenditure
for food.
Annual.
Annual.
Weekly.
Weekly.
North Atlantic States.................................
.....
............
South Atlantic States...................................
North Central States....................................
................
South Central States...................................
...........
Western States.......................................................................................................
1,415
219
721
122
90
5.25
5.30
5.46
5.65
4.69
*834.83
762.68
842.60
715.46
891.52
*16.05
14.67
16.20
13.76
17.15
*778.04
700.62
785.95
690.11
751.46
$14.96
13.47
15.11
13.27
14.45
*338.10
298.64
321.60
292.68
308.53
$6.50
5.74
6.18
5.36
5.32
..............
2,567
5.31
827.19
15.91
768.54
14.78
326.90
6.99
United States......................................
Authority for above table: Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor, United States, No. 59, July, 1905.
As Exhibit No. 8 I submit the quantity and value of the food
consumed by workingmen’s fam ilies in the United States per
week, 1901:
E x h ib it 8 .
Q uantity and value^ of certain a rticles of food consumed hy workingmen s
fam ilies in the U nited S ta tes per week, 1901.
(Average income, $14.78 per week. Number of families, 2,567.)
Article.
Amount.
Bread and flour.......................................
Meats........................................................
Fish............................................................
E ees.........................................................
nmind« .
Butter and lard...................................
Potatoes................................................. . _
Vegetables and fruit.................................
Cost.
*0.56
1.97
.15
.32
.41
.05
.73
.25
.68
.04
.31
.30
.11
.39
17.95
14.78
1.54
19.7
13.7
.31
3.87
17.0
.48
1.10
5.16
Coflee and tea...............................................
Suear....................................................... ......
Condiments, molasses, etc.......................
Other food.......................................................
—
6.27
..............
____ ------------326.90
Total expended for food per week
Total expended for food per year.
Authority: Bulletin of the Bureau o f Labor, No. 59, July, 1905.
As Exhibit No. 9 I submit the weekly rents workingmen pay
in England, Germany, France, and United States.
E x h i b i t 9.
W eekly ren ts in E ngland, G erm any, F rance, and U nited S tates.
Tenements.
London.
*1.46
1.82
2.19
Berlin.
*1.34
1.98
Paris.
*1.12
1.46 |
1.67
United
States.
a*1.91
° Average of 2,567 families, 1901, irrespective of size of tenement, in
total United States.
Report of board of trade to Parliament: (1908) cost of living in
German towns; (1909) cost of living in French towns; (1908) cost of
living o f working classes, United Kingdom.
Exhibit No. 10 is the per cent of income of workingmen’s
fam ilies spent for food.
E x h ib it 10.
P er cen t of income of w orkingm en’s fam ilies spen t for food.
Limit of income.
United
Kingdom,
1905.
Ger
many,
1905.
France,
1905.
United^
States.
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent.
62
59
66
58 j“ 42i
65
59
56
61
58
a 2,567 workingmen’s families.
Authority: Bulletin of United States Bureau of Labor No. 59.
port of board of trade to Parliament on cost of living (1908-9).
Re
I t w ould no t be d if f ic u l t to d e t e r m in e w i t h co m parative
PRECISION THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF PRODUCTION MEASURED
BY THE COST OF MATERIALS AND OF WAGES, THE RELATIVE EFFI
CIENCY OF LABOR, AND THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE WAGE
received .
F u t u r e t a r if f s s h o u l d be b a se d u p o n s u c h in f o r
m a t io n COMPILED BY EXPERTS EMPLOYED FOR THE PURPOSE. TH IS
WOULD GIVE A PROPER BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE DIFFERENCE IN
COST OF PRODUCTION AT HOME AND ABROAD, AND FOR DETERMINING
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE AMERICAN MANUFACTURER WOULD BE
PROTECTED IN PERCENTAGES OVER AND ABOVE THE DIFFERENCE IN
THE COST OF PRODUCTION, AND WOULD ESTABLISH A SOUND FOUNDA
TION UPON WHICH TO WRITE A TARIFF FOR REVENUE WHICH WOULD
AFFORD A LEGITIMATE AND REASONABLE INCIDENTAL PROTECTION,
WITHOUT GIVING SHELTER TO MONOPOLY.
It w ill be observed from these tables the vital fact that the
American laborer in the protected industries, and especially in
the cotton and woolen industries, does not receive the enormous
wages in comparison with the European workman in like indus
tries which the advocates of high tariff would have us believe.
On the contrary, their wages are very little, if any, better than
those of the European workman, and that the workman in the
United States, especially in the textiles, has been compelled to
supplement his own wages by compelling his w ife and his
daughter and his children of tender years to help earn sufficient
to enable them to keep body and soul together.
THE EXTREME USE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE RACE FOB MONEY
MAKING.
An untutored, full-blood Sioux Indian w as taken E ast and
shown the glories of its civilization and, when he had been sur
feited w ith sight-seeing, the question w as asked him, w hat had
struck him as the most important thing he saw, and he replied:
“ The w ay in which the white man makes his little children
work.”
So evil has been th is result of a monopoly-breaking tariff in
this Nation that a general alarm has been widely excited, and
various States and committees throughout the Nation are en
gaged in attempting its correction. (Proceedings of the fifth
annual conference, Chicago, 111., National Child Labor Commit
tee, 105 E ast Twenty-second street, New York.)
Bulletin No. 69, on Child Labor, Department of Commerce
and Labor, shows that 26 per cent of the m ale children of the
United States between 10 and 15 years of age are breadw inners;
1,264,000 male children between 10 and 15 years are breadwin
ners; 485,000 female children between 10 and 15 years are
breadwinners.
2.
I f the number of children over 15, wage-earners and not
yet adults, were classified, it would be found very large. Table
164, Census Bulletin, page 69, for example, gives the number
of children a t home, a t school, and employed as breadwinners
in fam ilies in which there are fem ale textile workers 10 to 14
years of age, for Chicago, and New York, and out of 3,595 chil
dren over 15 years of age, 190 were at home, 52 at school, and
3,353 employed in gainful occupations. No record is made by
the census of children not employed in gainful occupations un
der 10 years of age, nor over 15 years of age; so that it is
probably no exaggeration to state that four or five million of
'children are engaged in labor when they ought to be in school
or at play.
By Census Volume 2, page cxxxi, it is shown that the number
of females engaged in gainful occupations, outside of domestic
service w as 5,329,292, and the probable number of women and
girls now engaged in gainful occupations w ill probably exceed
seven m illions; 28 per cent being so employed in Massachusetts,
29.6 per cent in Rhode Island, 24.3 per cent in Connecticut, 20.8
per cent in New Jersey, 23 per cent in New York and 7.9 per
cent in Oklahoma. The reason for women being compelled to
go into competition w ith men in the gainful occupations is
largely because the men of the fam ily do not receive enough to
maintain the fam ily and enable the women to have the means
they require and to remain at home where they properly belong
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
ln a civilization of a high order. The driving of the American
woman from the home where her activities would best be em
ployed in promoting her own happiness and the happiness of
Mankind, and where her services to the race would be best em
ployed in raising children and teaching them the lessons of re
gion, morality, and the sturdy virtues taught by our foreI hers, is not the least of the crushing effects of modern monop°'y engendered by a monopoly protecting tariff, and by the un
restrained avarice and ambition with their false standards of
ire which are thus set up in a mad race for power.
will be seen by the wages in the textile industries that the
01- sl)lIlners of Germany and France are paid more in money
lan m the United States, the weavers less, and the mule spinners
Jjrance more, than those of the United States; that the
11, 01ea spinners of Germany and France are paid more money
. . . V rboy are in the United States, while the weavers are
cotto Jess\ kut in considering the fact that the money of the
win '} d in ners and woolen spinners of France and Germany
w„
^0 per cent more than in the United States, the
bere i ti y leceive aro decidedly better. When it is rememthe p , e ^•mei'ican workman turns out twice as much as
the A.?rm.;m or Frenchman, then the ungenerous treatment of
mencan cotton and woolen spinners is obvious. It is also
3273
obvious that the plea of the Massachusetts and Rhode Island
manufacturer that the h ig h e r wages he is compelled to pay his
cotton and wool spinners in order to meet the pauper labor com
petition of France and Germany is a monumental falsehood
used to hoodwink the patriotism of the American people and
lead them to tax themselves for the poor spinner’s sake who
toil in the cotton and woolen mills.
It is interesting to observe that labor in the protected indus
tries of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom are paid
much smaller wages than in the unprotected industries, and
labor might well question the value of a protective system
which operates throughout the world to give them less remu
neration for their labor than in the unprotected industries.
A COMPETITION-PROHIBITING TARIFF HAS SERVED
TO INCREASE PRICES AND LOWER THE PURCHASING
POWER OF ALL WAGES AND OF ALL INCOMES.
In the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society for March,
1909, page 68, A. Sauerbeck, an acknowledged authority, gives
a comparison of world prices, based on 45 commodities, and
using as an index the standards fixed by the period of eleven
years, 1867-1877, which in the aggregate was the equivalent of
the average of the twenty-five years preceding; that is, from
1853-1877. The index number is 100.
P ric es o f com m odities in 1908.
IJiy A. Sauerbeck. 1
eleven vpnro°^L ^
shows the course of prices of 45 commodities during the last twenty years a s compared with the standard period oi
1886, n'n nno I tSfj* —i<S7T, which in the aggregate is equivalent to the average of the twenty-five years, 1853-1877. (See the Society s Journal,
’ l p - 092 and 048; and 1893, pp. 220 and 247.)
(Summary of index numbers. Groups of articles, 1 8 6 7 -1877= 100.)
Yoar.
1889..
1890.. . ....
1891.. . ....
1892.. . " "
1893 ..........
1894 ..
1895 ..
’
1890....... " "
1897 .. "■
1898 ..
1899 .. " "
1900.. . " "
1901.. .. " "
1902.. .. ..
1903.. . ..
1904.. . .....
1905.. . ..
1906.. . .....
1907.. ......................................
1908.. ..
Average
1899-1908.
1888-1897
1878-1887
Vege
table
food
(com,
etc.).
Animal
food
(meat,
etc.).
Sugar,
coffee,
and tea.
Total
food.
Min
erals.
Tex
tiles.
Sun
dry
mate
rials.
75
70
71
69
75
65
62
59
52
51
53
54
46
41
44
50
52
46
75
73
77
73
72
66
64
62
GO
67
60
62
62
63
62
63
63
62
69
70
86
82
81
84
85
80
78
73
79
77
79
85
85
87
84
83
87
89
88
89
48
69
67
67
66
68
69
69
72
72
75
80
76
71
68
64
62
63
66
70
92
108
89
82
82
81
87
101
107
89
70
66
59
57
59
53
52
54
51
51
58
66
60
71
66
71
72
80
77
02
68
C9
69
67
68
64
65
63
62
63
65
71
71
71
69
67
68
74
78
73
70
71
68
65
65
GO
CO
00
59
Cl
70
80
72
71
72
72
75
83
86
74
72
72
72
68
68
63
62
61
62
64
G8
75
70
69
69
70
72
77
80
73
04
62
79
86
81
95
48
66
76
68
70
84
92
70
73
67
59
71
71
66
81
75
76
65
65
75
65
59
55
54
4S
1 r4 WAU ^ U1S tlc observed that as compared with 100 for 1853**> tbe grand total index number of world prices for 1889
t',as
and for 1899 to 1908 it was 72, a fall in prices due to
tue demonetization of silver throughout the world.
If w ill also be observed that the index number for 1889 and
-iJDo was 72; for 1908 it was 73, thus indicating a singular
stability in the grand total of the world prices (London), since
lo89, notwithstanding important intermediate variations.
Conceding that the volume of metallic money in the world,
together with the law of supply and demand of other materials,
are the determining factors fixing the average of world prices,
it should be observed that the wonderful increase in the output
of modern machinery as applied to all classes of products seems
to have been about equaled by the output of metallic money,
whose annual rate of gold output has approximately doubled
since 1896.
This table also shows the effect upon world prices by the dis
turbance of commercial credits of the world by financial panic;
the panic of 1893 being followed by the lowest world prices in
a generation.
It would seem to follow that the lowering of prices stimulated
purchases and exchanges and led to a corresponding reaction.
The panic of 1907 was followed by an immediate reaction in
world prices.
It is important to point out that, notwithstanding the in
creased output of merchantable articles, the increase of gold
08
Total Grand Sil
mate total. ver.
rials.
Wheat
harvest.
70.2
78.4
74.1
G5.4
58.6
47.6
49.1
50. 5
45.3
44 3
45.1
<6.4
44. 7
39.6
40.7
43.4
45. 7
£0.7
49.6
40.1
103
11.1
99
106
113
104
93
113
116
117
111
72 44.6
67 61.0
79 82.1
109
101
97
108
91
90
110
Average Average
price of Bank of
consols. England
rate.
Per cent.
3ft
4ft
3ft
2Iff
°ft
2ft
2
2Tff
2Tff
3*
4
3}
3ft
3)
SSJ
3ft
891
3
8S5
45
84
86
3
98
961
951
961
981
101
1065
111
1125
111
10/
991
94
94£
sol
925
loii
99)
3ft
2 fry
3ft
circulation available for the use of the world markets has
been very large, and that this probably accounts for the sub! stantial stability of world prices since 1889. These figures are
| of intense interest when compared with the chauges in prices
which have taken place in the United States. Taking the
tables of the Statistical Abstract of 1907, it will be seen that
middling cotton which was 11.07 cents in 1890 was 11.5 cents in
in 1806, having reached a very low price of 6.94 cents in
1894. ju st after the panic, and a still lower point of 5.94 cents
in 1898, just after the Dinglev bill passed; while standard
sheetings for 1890 was 7 cents, and 1906, 7.25 cents, reaching
a low point of 5.11 cents in 1894, just after the panic, and its
lowest point, 4.2 cents, in 1898, just after the passage of the
Diugley bill.
In like manner standard drillings and other cotton cloths
fluctuated similarly following the panic and following the
Dingley bill.
Mr. President, I now submit a table (No. 202) from the
Abstract of Our National Statistics (1907), giving the rela
tive wholesale prices of raw and of manufactured commodi
ties of 1890 to 1906 and per cent of increase in prices for
1906 over prices for each preceding y e a r ; and also Table
203, giving the relative wholesale prices of commodities from
1890 to 1906 and the per cent of increase in prices from
1906 over prices for each preceding year by group of com
modifies.
274
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
G reat increase in prices under D ingley A c t R ela tive w holesale prices
of ra w and of /-'£>
m aanufactured
com
m odities,^ 1890 to 1900
, and per
cent of
-.
.
n v - to n e
«...*___ >
Manufactured com
modities.
Raw commodities.
Calendar year.
1890...................
1891...................
1892...................
1893...................
1894...................
1895...................
1896...................
1897...................
1898...................
1899...................
1900...................
1901...................
1902...................
1903...................
1904...................
1905...................
1906...................
Rela
tive
price.
Per cent of
increase in
1906 over
each preced
ing.
115.0
116.3
107.9
104.4
93.2
91.7
84.0
87.6
94.0
105.9
111.9
111.4
122.4
122.7
119.7
121.2
125.9
9.5
8.3
16.7
20.0
35.1
37.3
49.9
43.7
33.9
18.9
12.5
13.0
2.9
2.6
5.2
3.9
Per cent of
increase In
1906 over
each preced
ing.
Rela
tive
price.
112.3
110.6
105.6
105.9
96.8
94.0
91.9
90.1
93.3
100.7
110.2
107.8
110.6
111.5
111.3
114.6
121.0
8.3
9.9
15.2
14.8
25.6
29.4
32.3
35.0
30.3
20.8
10.3
12.8
9.9
9.1
9.3
6.1
112.9
111.7
106.1
105.6
96.1
93.6
90.4
89.7
93.4
101.7
110.5
108.5
112.9
113.6
113.0
115.9
122.4
Per cent of
Increase in
1906 over
each preced
ing.
8.4
9.6
15.4
15.9
27.4
30.8
35.4
36.5
31.0
20.4
10.8
12.8
8.4
7.7
8.3
5.6
N o t e . From reports of the Bureau of Labor, Department of Com
merce and Labor. This table summarizes wholesale prices of 258 staple
commodities. 1 he commodities designated as “ R a w ” are such as are
marketed in their natural state and also such as have been subjected
to only a preliminary m anufacturing process; this group includes 50
articles. The commodities designated as “ Manufactured ” are such as
have been subjected to more than a preliminary factory manipulation
and in which the m anufacturing labor cost constitutes an important
element in the p r ic e ; th is group includes 20S articles. A relative price,
or index number, as it is technically called, o f any article is the per cent
which the price of th at article a t any date is of the price of the same
article at a date or period which has been selected as the base or stand
ard. The base selected by the Bureau of Labor for this compilation is
the average price for the ten-year period 1890 to 1899. The relative prices
shown under each group are simple averages of the relatives of all ar
ticles included w ithin the group. Average price for 1 8 9 0 -1 8 9 9 = 1 0 0 .
Exhibit 6.
R ela tive w holesale prices o f com m odities, 1890 to 1906, and per cent of
increase in prices for 1906 over prices for each preceding year, by
groups of commodities.
Farm products.
Food etc.
Per cent
Per cent
of in
of In
crease
in
crease
in
Relative 1906 over Relative 1906 over
price. each pre price. each pre
ceding
ceding
year.
year.
Calendar year.
1890 .........................................................
1891.................................................................
1892 ............................ .............................
1893
...........................................................
1894
........................................................
1895.............. „..................................................
1896
.........................................................
...........................................................
1897
1898
. . . . *.................................................
1899..................................................................
1900
......................................................
1901..................................................................
1902..................................................................
1903..................................................................
1904................................................................
1905............................................
1906...............................................
1907....................................................
12.4
1.7
10.7
14.6
28.9
32.5
57.9
45.1
28.6
23.6
12.9
5.7
a 5. 3
4.0
o2.1
o.5
110.0
121.5
111.7
107.9
95.9
93.3
78.3
85.2
96.1
100.0
109.5
116.9
130.5
118.8
126.2
124.2
123.6
112.4
115.7
103.6
110.2
99.8
94.6
83.8
87.7
94.4
98.3
104.2
105.9
111. 3
107.1
107.2
108.7
112.6
117.8
0.2
a2.7
8.7
2.2
12.8
19.0
34.4
28.4
19.3
14.5
8.1
6.3
1.2
5.1
5.0
3.6
1
Cloths and clothing. Fuel and lighting.
Per cent
Per cent
of in
of In
crease
in
crease
in
Relative 1906 over Relative
1906 over
price. each pre price.
each pre
ceding
ceding
year.
year.
Calendar year.
1890........................................................
189i ....................................................
1892 ...........................................................
1895 ........................................... ..................
1896 ...............................................................
1897
..........................................................
1898.............................................................
1899................................................................
1900..................................................................
1901 ...............................................................
1902
...................... .........................
..............................1903
1904..................................................................
1905 ......................................................... ......
1906 ............................................................
113.5
111.3
109.0
107.2
96.1
92.7
61.3
91.1
93.4
96.7
106.8
101.0
102.0
106.0
109.8
112.0
120.0
° Decrease.
R ela tive w holesale prices of com m odities, 1890 to 1906, etc.— Continued.
Metals and imple Lumber and build
ments.
ing materials.
All commodities.
Rela
tive
price.
5.7
7.8
10.1
11.9
24.9
39.4
31.4
31.7
28.5
24.1
12.4
18.8
17.6
12.6
9.3
7.1
104.7
102.7
101.1
100.0
92.4
98.1
104.3
96.4
95.4
105.0
120.9
119.5
134.3
149. 3
132.6
128.8
129.5
J u n e 15,
Per cent
Per cent
of in
of In
crease
in Relative crease in
Relative 1906 over
1900 over
price. each pre price.
each pre
ceding
ceding
year.
year.
Calendar year.
1890..................................................................
1891............................. .................................
1892..................................................................
1893..................................................................
1894..................................................................
1895..................................................................
1896..................................................................
1897..................................................................
1898..................................................................
1899.........................................................
1900..................................................................
1901..................................................................
1902..................................................................
1903............................ ......................................
1904....................... ............. .............................
1905..................................................................
1906..................................................................
119.2
111.7
106.0
100.7
90.7
92.0
93.7
86.6
86.4
114.7
120.5
111.9
117.2
117.6
109.6
122.5
135.2
13.4
21.0
27.5
34.3
49.1
47.0
44.3
56.1
56.5
17.9
12.2
20.8
15.4
15.0
23.4
10.4
Drugs and chem
icals.
111.8
108.4
102.8
101.9
96.3
94.1
93.4
90.4
95.8
105.8
115.7
116.7
118.8
121.4
122.7
127.7
140.1
25.3
29.2
36.3
37.5
45.5
48.9
50.0
55.0
46.2
32.4
21.1
20.1
17.9
15.4
14.2
9.6
House furnishing
goods.
Per cent
Per cent
of in
of in
crease in Relative crease in
Relative 1906
over
1906
over
price. each pre price.
each pre
ceding
ceding
year.
year.
Calendar year.
1890..................................................................
1891............................... ..................................
1892............................... ..............................
1893
...........................................................
1894
....................................................
1900
.........................................................
1901.................................................................
1902
...........................................................
1903..................................................................
1904
........................................................
1906..................................................................
110.2
103.6
102.9
100.5
89. 8
87.9
92.6
94.4
106.0
111.3
115.7
115.2
114.2
112.6
110.0
109.1
101.2
a8.2
0 2.3
«l. 7
.7
12.7
15.1
9.3
7.2
a5.1
o9.1
ol2.5
ol2.2
a ll.4
olO.l
08.0
o7.2
Miscellaneous.
111.1
110.2
106.5
104.9
100.1
96.5
94.0
89.8
92.0
95.1
106.1
110.9
112.2
113.0
111.7
109.1
111.0
o0.1
.7
4.2
5.8
10.9
15.0
18.1
23.6
20.7
16.7
4.6
.1
“1.1
“ 1.8
0.6
1.7
All commodities.
Per cent
Percent
of in
of in
crease in Relative crease in
Relative 1906
over
1906
price. each pre price. each over
pre
ceding
ceding
year.
year.
Calendar year.
1890..................................................................
1891.................................................................
1892..................................................................
1893....... ..........................................................
1894.................................................................
1895..................................................................
1896..................................................................
1897..................................................................
1898..................................................................
1899..................................................................
1900..................................................................
1901..................................................................
1902..................................................................
1903..................................................................
1904............ .....................................................
1905.............. —...............-........ .....................
110.3
109.4
10G.2
105.9
99.8
94.5
91.4
92.1
92.4
97.7
109.8
107.4
114.1
113.6
111.7
112.8
121.1
9.8
10.7
14.0
14.4
21.3
28.1
32.5
31.5
31.1
24.0
10.3
12.8
6.1
6.6
8.4
7.4
112.9
111.7
106.1
105.6
96.1
93.6
90.4
89.7
93.4
101.7
110.5
108.5
112.9
113.6
113.0
115.9
122.4
8.4
9.6
15.4
15.9
27.4
30.8
35.4
36.5
31.0
20.4
10.8
12.8
8.4
7.7
8.3
5.6
° Decrease.
N o t e .— From reports of the Bureau of Labor, Department of Com
34.3
35.7
23.3
7.1
8.4
“3.6
ol3.3
02. 3
.5
merce and Labor. The group farm products includes 16 commodities •
food, etc., 53 ; cloths and clothing, 75 ; fuel and lighting, 13 ; m etals and
implements, 3 8 ; lumber and building material, 2 7 ; drugs and chemicals
9 ; house furnishing goods, 14 ; and the miscellaneous group, 13. Aver
age price for 1 8 9 0 -1 8 9 9 = 1 0 0 .
I also submit Dun’s tables showing tbe variations in prices in
the United States.
It should be kept clearly in mind that tbe federal census is, to
a very appreciable degree, influenced by the manufacturing
industries of tbe country favorably to themselves, and this dif-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
ference is demonstrated by Dun’s tables, which show the increase
of prices to be much larger in the United States than as shown
by Census Abstract Tables 202 and 203 :
Leadin g classes of necessary articles of daily consumption— Prices, a t
prim ary m arkets, from July 1, 1SG0, to May 1, 1907.
[Index number, from Dun’s Review.]
Date.
July l —
I860...
1861_
1862...
1865__
1867..
. .....
1868..
. . .......
1869..
.
.
1870..
. .......
1871..
. .....
1872..
. .......
1873..
. .......
1874..
. .......
1875..
. .....
1876..
. .......
1877
...................
1878.........................
1879.........................
1880 ........................
1881 ............. ..........
1882 ........................
1883 ........................
1884 ........................
1885 ........................
1886 ........................
1887 ......................
1888.
...............
1889..
..............
1890.. ...................
1891.
.................
1892..
................
1893..
..............
1894.. ...................
1895... ...............
1896..
...............
189/—Januarv l
Dairy
Mis
Bread- Meats. and Other Cloth Met cella
gar food. ing.
stuffs.
als. neous. Total.
den.
Dolls.
20.53(
15.741
18.057
26.154
45.616
25.404
31.471
36.537
38.416
29.116
25.322
24.806
22.171
20.46C
25.657
24.848
18.777
21.812
15.672
17.0,54
17.461
20.369
25.494
19.018
17.871
16.370
15.311
15.156
16.984
14.351
14.867
19.782
17.426
14.963
15.115
14.765
10. 504
10. 587
1898—January 1
J u iy i...
12. 783
1899—January l
,
July 1.. ............ 13.816
13. 483
1900—January l
July 1. ............
1901—
January 1 14. 898
14.486
July 1. ............ 14.904
1902—January l
..
July 1. ............ 20.002
20.534
1903—January 1
17.104
17. 473
1904JU
ly
l----;
'
^
:
iyu4~-January 1
July i . . . . ;;;;**** 17.102
1905—
January i ]..18.244
18.278
1906—
January 1. 18.831
16. 554
July l / ............ 17.923
1907—
January l 16.079
May 1.
18.165
Dolls.
8.97J
7.485
7.150
10.115
15.685
16.112
17.153
14.278
13.210
13.181
14.161
12.177
11.055
10.114
11.56(
13. 287
10.726
10.031
8.181
8.23!
9.230
11.381
13.740
11.210
11.172
9.205
8.906
8.667
9.416
8.244
S. 036
9.217
8.700
10.135
9.389
8.622
7.058
7.327
7.529
7.336
7.694
7.520
7.988
7.258
8.906
8.407
9. 430
9.070
11.628
9.522
9.269
8.138
9.033
7.950
8. 614
8.420
9.677
9.350
9.641
Dolls.
12.662
10.813
13.406
13. 53C
26.052
18.04£
23.472
18.418
23.614
18.121
16.112
20.799
16.019
15.629
19.142
14.918
15.912
11.790
10.608
10.253
12.594
11.311
14.685
12.250
11.369
10.872
10.241
11.188
11.849
9.695
10.711
12.455
10.403
11.710
10.394
9.874
7.872
10. 456
8.714
12.371
9.437
11.458
10.974
13.702
10.901
15.556
11.030
15.248
12.557
14.613
13.083
15.287
10.648
13.948
9.982
14.399
12. 690
14.965
14.461
Dolls. Dolls.
8.894 22.43S
7.653 21.147
10.987 28.413
16.359 45.67S
27.302 73.485
21.057 49.307
20.821 45.377
20.167 38.169
19.72C 35.694
16.347 35.30S
13.308 31.48C
13.823 30.624
14.845 32.427
13.625 29.411
13.678 27.260
14.418 25.318
12.914 21.747
13.321 21.850
11.346 19.836
9.884 20.420
11.539 21.984
11.663 20.982
11.627 21.202
10.726 20.209
9.323 19.014
8.712 17.740
8.570 18.063
9.252 18.174
9.917 17.447
10.912 17.107
9.749 17.264
9.339 16.501
8.733 15.648
9.188 15.871
8.478 13.860
8.689 15.315
8.529 13.602
8.170 12. 407
7.887 13.808
8.312 14.654
8.826 14.663
9.096 14.150
9.157 15.021
9.200 17. 484
9.482 16.324
9.504 16.024
9.086 15.098
8.952 15.547,
k 748 15 533
9.418 15.938
9.186 17.136
9.653 17.316
10. 406 16.514
10. 699 16.319
9.922 17.986
9.822 19.313
9.645 19.177
9. 700 19. 637
9.824 20.098
Dolls.
25.851
22.500
23.207
37.079
59.192
38.956
41.762
35.426
27.385
28.355
26.612
27.371
32.643
32.298
25.254
23.515
20.452
15.578
15.789
15.149
18.708
19.295
19.832
18.071
16.272
14.132
14.466
16.035
15.366
14.782
15.506
15.107
14.827
14.030
12.015
11.021
13.232
13.014
11.642
11.572
11.843
11.843
15.635
Ik 085
14.834
15.810
15.344
15.375;
16.084
17.185
16.544
15.887
15.428
16.18S
15.916
17.141
16. 649
18.087
17.524
Dolls.
15.842
16.573
17.290
24.264
31.653
25.551
27.922
25.529
24.786
24.201
21.786
21.907
21.319
21.355
19.582
18.398
15.951
15.160
14.836
16.286
17.139
16.900
16.650
15.764
14.685
13.666
13.669
15.153
14.155
14.600
15.416
13.691
14.252
14.716
14.041
13.233
13.520
12.399
12.288'
12.184
12.522
12.540
12.969
16.312
16.070
15.881
16.617
16.793
16.826
16. 578
16.765
16.759
16.919
16.936
17.061
18.809
19.555
19.386
19.242
Dolls.
115.101
101.920
118.510
173.180
278.987
194. 436
207.978
188.524
182.825
164.630
148.781
151.510
150.479
143.089
143.133
134.702
116.479
109.547
96.268
97.285
108.655
111.901
123.230
107.248
99.706
90.697
89.226
93.624
95.134
89.691
91.549
96.092
90.105
90.613
83.292
81.519
74.317
75.502
72. 455
79.940
77.768
80.423
85.227
95.295
91.415
95.668
91.509
101.587
101.910
100.356
99.456
100.142
97.192
100.318
98.312
104.464
105.216
107.264
108.955
shnmnE' i n
ahove table the course of prices of commodities is
conanrii a», in each case tllc Price is multiplied by the annual per capita
ptlon, which precludes any one commodity having more than Its
of v5 r 'K b t in the aggregate. Breads tuffs include many quotations
v . wn*at> corn, oats, rye, bnrley, beans, and p ea se; meats include live
beef, sheep, and many provisions, lard, tallow, e tc .: dairy and
garden products embrace eggs, vegetables, fruits, milk, butter, cheese,
etc. ; other food includes fish, liquors, condiments, sugar, rice, tobacco,
etc. ; clothing covers the raw material of each industry, and many quo
tations of woolen, cotton, silk, and rubber goods, as well as "hides,
leather, boots, and sh o e s; metals include various quotations of pig iron
and partially manufactured and finished products, as well as the minor
Metals, tin, lead, copper, etc., and coal and petroleum ; miscellaneous
includes many grades of hard and so ft lumber, laths, brick, lime, glass,
turpentine, hemp, linseed oil, paints, fertilizers, and drugs. The third
decimal is given for accuracy of comparison.
There thus appears by Dun’s more accurate tables an in
crease from 1806 to May 1, 1007, of 4G.7 per cent on total aver
age of prices of 1800, and on clothing the increase from January
1, 1897, to May 1, 1907, was 69 per cent, and on miscellaneous
articles was 55 per cent.
The two tables from our own census contain overwhelming
evidence of the injurious results of the Dingley bill upon labor;
it shows, for example, Mr. President, that prices have been in
creased on raw commodities 25.9 per cent over the average
prices from 1890 to 1900, and 49.9 per cent over the prices of raw
commodities under the Wilson bill.
3275
Our prices were already in 1906 much higher than in Europe,
so that these increases are the more striking.
Mr. President, do not the manufacturing classes themselves
see that such an enormous raise in prices of raw commodities
is injurious both to their domestic and foreign trade? Do they
not see it necessarily limits the consumption of the people,
whose little salaries are fixed, whose little pension can not be
increased in dollars and cents, whose purchasing power is lim
ited to a fixed wage, a wage not exceeding, among the manu
facturing laboring classes, $160 per annum per capita?
The obvious result is to restrict consumption of goods, lim it
the output of goods, lower the factory output, and lim it the
demand for labor.
Mr. President, in like manner the increase of manufactured
commodities in price, including a group of 208 articles, has
been 35 per cent since the louver prices under the Wilson bill
and an increase of 36.5 per cent upon all commodities above the
more reasonable prices under the Wilson bill.
What corresponding increase of wages has labor received?
Their wages are relatively less than they were ten years ago,
both in relation to the output of labor and in relation to the
purchasing power of the wage received; and the demand for
labor has been necessarily diminished by preventing the con
sumption of manufactured and other commodities, because of
prices which could not be paid out of the limited number of
dollars the ordinary American has received, feuch a policy is
injurious to the manufacturer, to the wage-earner, to the com
mon citizen consumer, to the business men of the entire Nation,
and to our national growth and development.
And differentiating these increases of prices, it w ill be seen by
Table 203 that the prices of 1906 for food are 34 per cent higher
than they were in 1896 under the Wilson bill; the cloths and
clothing have increased 31.4 per cent above the prices of 1896
under the Wilson bill; that fuel and lighting have increased
40 per cent since 1894 under the Wilson bill , that metals and
metal implements have increased 56 per cent above the prices
under the Wilson bill; that lumber and building material have
increased 55 per cent over the prices under the Wilson bill;
that house furnishings have increased 23.6 per cent above the
lower prices of the Wilson bill; and miscellaneous articles of
various kinds have increased 32-5 per cent above the more
reasonable prices of the Wilson bill. Are
American people
utterly oblivious to these striking and conclusive acts
It is perfectly obvious from Sauerbeck tables of the prices
of the world and from Dun’s table of American (United States)
prices that American (United States) prices have increased
far beyond European prices since the low price of 1896, not
withstanding American (United States) prices were then much
higher than they were in Europe. It therefore follows, be
yond question, that the purchasing power of American wages,
even of the starvation wages paid in the cotton and woolen mills,
has been lowered in such a way as to greatly harm the Amer
ican workmen, even in protected industries, and has harmed
equally the entire American people, workmen, consumers gener
ally, and even the manufacturers, who are severely taxing each
other by high prices—the finished product of the one being
the raw material of the other. The only people who have a net
profit are those who own and control the successful monopolies.
Is the Finance Committee so committed to the demands of
the representatives of organized greed in this country that
they w ill refuse to deal justly by the American people?
Or do they believe that by making the rich richer and the
poor poorer they will receive adequate political benefit at tne
hands of those whom they enrich?
I know7, Mr. President, that it has been easy to finance Re
publican campaigns, and I know many good men have not
stopped to think that this money was extorted from the misery
and sw’eat of helpless men, women, and children.
Members of the Senate do not often visit the sweat shops;
nor do they often see the sorrow7 and distress of the individuals
who compose the weaker elements of our great Nation. I
remind them that 500,000 die annually by our neglect, as shown
by the comparison between the death rate of New7 Zealand
and Australia, where better laws prevail, where the maxim of
the law is “ Better reduce wTant than increase wealth.”
Mr. President, I feel charged writh a solemn duty to make a
record before the Senate of these conditions, and I deem it a
great opportunity to have the privilege of submitting a prayer
to the leaders of the Senate that they do not be unmindful or
inconsiderate of the need and the rights of the inarticulate
mass, and that they do not lend too complacent attention to the
trained advocates of unsatisfied greed.
3276
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
Senator Orville H. Platt, tlie late distinguished Senator from
Connecticut, once said, in substance, in commenting on the faults
of the American legislator, that “ The American legislator should
not be charged w ith incompetency. As a rule, he is fairly well
qualified; neither can he be justly charged w ith dishonesty.
There are a few who may bo dishonest, perhaps, but they do
not exercise any control of legislation. The fault of the Ameri
can legislator is ‘ good-fellow ship’ and doing for a friend
w hat under no other circumstances would the legislator for a
moment consider. For that reason,” said he, “ I deem it the
highest legislative virtue to be cross and crabbed to all the
world, especially in the last ten days of the session.”
It w ill be thus seen that, from Sauerbeck’s tables, the increase
of the world prices has been much lower than the increases of
prices in the United States, and that this difference must be
accounted for in some reasonable manner.
The most natural way in which to account for it is to show
that the prices in the United States are artificially controlled
by monopoly.
And this average high increase must be interpreted in the light
of a great offset of the lowering of prices of all products pro
duced by the American people of which monopoly controls the
price. For example, crude oil is produced by Oklahoma in vast
quantities—approximately 50,000,000 barrels per annum—which
sells for less than 1 cent a gallon, while the refined product
retails for over 11 cents a gallon. It costs half a cent a gallon
to refine it. The low price is fixed by the Standard on the
crude and the high price is fixed by the Standard on the refined.
And the increase of all prices is in the face of the vital fact
that monopoly fixes an extrem ely low price on the articles
produced by the people o f which the monopoly controls the
price. The average high price would he far higher except for
the v ery low price fixed by monopoly on its purchases, a s on
crude oil. This is not only true with regard to oil, but also is
true w ith regard to cattle, hogs, sheep, hides, wool, various
minerals, tobacco, and so forth. That this low price of articles
bought by monopoly prevented the general average from reach
ing the high point which they would otherwise reach in the
statistical tables is a factor of great importance.
W ithout regard to statistics, everybody knows that the prices
are now very much higher than they have ever been.
The schedules of this bill are approximately 50 per cent on
the value of proposed imports, and this is proof that the prices
in the United States are 50 per cent higher than they are in
Europe and abroad on the articles of these schedules by the
open confession of the managers of th is bill, and I therefore do
not need to furnish further proof of this matter as the schedules
confess that the prices in this country are approximately 50
per cent higher than they are abroad on articles affected by the
present tariff law.
Mr. President, it is of great importance to observe these d if
ferences between our present prices and the increase of our
present prices as compared w ith the increase of the prices of
the world, because it thus enables us to determine to what ex
tent local conditions have raised our prices above the level of
the prices o f the world.
WORLD PRICES AND PRICES IN XUE UNITED STATES— RISE IN PRICES IN
THE UNITED STATES NOT DUE TO INCREASE IN PER CAPITA CIRCULA
TION.
At first thought it m ight occur to some one that the higher
prices in the United States were due to the larger per capita
circulation, but this conclusion is impossible because, while our
per capita circulation December 31, 1906 (Statistical Abstract,
1907, Table 269), w as $33.99 per capita, France had a per capita
o f $40.88 and Germany $25.03 and the British Empire $28.12,
w ith no substantial differences in competitive prices at London,
thus exhibiting the interesting fact that th is enormous increase
of prices in the United States, and the fact that United States
prices are much higher than the level of world prices, is not
due to our increased circulating medium, but is due to the
monopolies in this country which have for commercial purposes
raised these prices in America far above the prices in the mar
kets of the world.
That these high prices are not necessary for the maintenance
of a reasonable profit is shown by the table of lower prices at
which these same American goods are sold abroad by the pro
tected monopolies in this country.
A few of these prices are submitted to prove that the prices
in the United States under monopoly w ill average 50 per cent
higher than in the markets of the world.
As evidence of this I submit a table from James G. Parsons
showing the differences in discounts between export and home
prices.
J u n e 15
T a b le I.— Showing differences in discounts betw een export and home
prices.
[B y James G. Parsons, Senate Document No. 54, Sixty-first Congress,
first session.]
Articles and description.
Export discount
from list.
Anger bits:
Irwin’s solid center..........................
Snell’s.................................................
Snell’s “ King” .................................
Auger handles, Gunn’s No. 5, adjust
able and ratchet...................................
Bells, Texas cow......................................
Bird cages, Hendryx’s brass..................
Bolt clippers, “ New Easy” ...................
Bolts:
Carriage, | by 6 inches and smaller.
Machine, j by 4 inches and smaller.
Tire....................................................
Borers, bunghole, Enterprise................
Braces:
Fray’s genuine “ Spofiords” ...........
Fray’s ratchet, Nos. 81-161.............
Fray’s ratchet, Nos. 83-143.............
Fray’s ratchet, Nos. 62-142.............
Fray’s ratchet, Nos. 66-166.............
Fray’s sleeve, Nos. 207-214..............
Fray’s sleeve, Nos. 407-414..............
Fray’s sleeve, Nos. 606-614..............
Fray’s plain, Nos. 306-314...............
Can openers, “ King".............................
Cartridges, rim fire..................................
Chains, kennel.........................................
Coffee mills, Enterprise.........................
Door rollers and hangers, Lane’s ...........
Gauges, Disston’s steel and center........
Harness snaps:
Covert’s “ Trojan” ...........................
Covert’s “ Yankee” ..........................
Covert's “ Derby” ............................
Lawn sprinklers, Enterprise............... ;
Levels, Starrett’s bench and pocket---Oilstones, “ Lily White” and “ Wa
shita” No. 1........................................
Plumbs, levels, etc., Disston’s .............
Sausage stuflers, Enterprise................
Per cent.
Per
Home discount cent
from list.
differ
ence.
60,10, and 10
70
60 and 10
Per cent.
50 and 10
00
50
39
33}
39
35
50 and 10
50
CO, 10, and 5
15 and 10
50
30
50,10, and 10
18
11
40
18
80 and 10
80 and 10
80,10, and 5
40 and 2
75 and 10
75,10, and 5
80
25
25
19
17
27
70
60 and 10
COand 10
70
COand 10
CO,10, and 10
COand 10
60 and 10
70
25
CO, 10,10, and 6
COand 10
40 and 10
60,10,10, and 5
45
00
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
0
50
60
20 and 25
60 and 10
25,7}, and 10
33}
39
39
66}
39
54
39
39
66}
33}
64
11
11
17
12
50 and 10
40
30 and 2
25
30
33} and 5
33}
37
39
19
11
33}
60 and 10
25 and 7}
33}
72
18
30 and 7}
30 and 7i
25 and 71
25 and 7.
30
25
60
20
70
25 and 7}
27
27
28
28
40
50
65
14
37
28
£0
40 and 10
40 and 2
40 and 5
50
70,10,10,10, and 5
40 and 2
Disston’s Nos. 7,107,1074, 3, and 1.
Disston’s combination.....................
40 and 10
Disston’s Nos. 12,16, D 8,120,76,8..
40 and 10
Disston’s compass and keyhole---50
Disston’s butcher......................
50
Disston’s framed wood.............
70,10, and 10
Disston’s band...........................
30
Scroll saws, Barnes’s velocipede...
70,10,10, and 10
Screw-drivers. Disston’s electric...
40 and 10
Smoked beef shavers, Enterprise..
Squares:
*
Disston’s try, rosewood handle---- 70,10,10,10, and 5
45
Disston’s steel...................................
50
Traps, Lovell’s rat and mouse..............
i
Trowels, Disston’s brick........................
Vises:
80
and
10
Armstrong’s plain and hinged........
60
Armstrong’s pipe..............................
60
Bonney’s ..........................................
60 and 10
25,7}, and 10
331
25
72
13
33}
47
60
50
30 and 10
122
25
20
T a b l e I I . — Showing difference betw een export and home prices of certain
Export Home
price. price.
Articles and description.
Auger bits:
Irwin’s solid center, 4-16................................
Irwin’s solid center, 16-16...............................
Auger handles, Gunn’s No. 5...............................
Bird cages, Hendryx’s No. 316...............- - ......
Bolt clippers, “ Easy” and “ New Easy, No. 1
Bolts:
.
Carriage, | by 6 inches.....................................
Machine, } by 4 inches....................................
Tire, § by 6 inches...........................................
Fray’s genuine “ Spofford,” No. 107.
Fray’s ratchet, No. 81.......................
Fray’s ratchet. No. 62........................
Fray’s sleeve, No. 207.......................
Fray’s sleeve, No. 606.......................
Fray’s plain, No. 306........................
Bunghole borers. Enterprise, No. 1........
Can openers, “ King”...............................
Coflee mills, Enterprise, No. 1.................
Files, Nicholson’s:
Mill and round bastard, 3 to 4 inch.
Mill and round bastard 5-inch.........
Mill and round bastard, 6inch.........
Flat bastard, 3 to 4 inch...................
Flat bastard, 5-inch..........................
Flat bastard, 6inch...........................
Flat bastard, 7-inch..........................
Flat bastard, 8-inch..........................
Flat bastard, 9-inch..........................
Dif.
Ter
ence.
P.ct.
39
39
18
40
18
.per doz.. $1.30
__ do___ 2.92
__ do___ 0.75
__ do___ 13.03
__ each.. 1.71
$1.80
4.05
11.43
18.20
2.03
.60
.57
.65
.75
. .per doz.. 6.30
....... do___ 10.44
C. 90
....... do —
....... do___ 7.13
....... do___ 7.56
....... do___ 3.60
.74
.......do___
.per gross.. 4.50
....... each.. 1.22
8.40
14.50
11.50
33}
39
10.50
54
39
6.00
27
33}
.40
.48
.59
.40
.48
.59
.75
.88
1.01
.64
.68
.75
.79
.83
.92
1.03
1.13
1.35
CO
45
27
98
73
56
37
28
34
.per 100..
...d o __
...d o __
.per doz..
__ do___
__ do___
__ do___
__ do___
__ do—
__ do---__ do___
— do__
.68
.76
11.00
6.00
.94
1.35
25
19
17
06}
66}
11
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
Table II.— Showing difference between export and home prices of certain
specified articles— Continued.
Articles and description.
E xport Home
price. price.
Files, Nicholson’s—Continued.
_
Elat bastard, 11-lneG............................................ per dor.. *1.51
Flat bastard, 13-inch................................................. do___ 2.11
Square bastard, 3 to 4 inch.......................................do___
.40
Square bastard, 5-inch.............................................. do___
.48
Square bastard, G-inch.............................................. do___
.59
Square bastard, 7-inch.............................................. do___
.75
Square bastard, 8-inch.............................................. do___
.88
Square bastard, 9-inch.............................................. do.. .v 1.01
Square bastard, 10-inch.............................................d o .... 1.26
Square bastard, 11-inch.............................................d o .... 1.51
Square bastard. 12-inch.............................................do___ i 1.82
Gau“Tuare bastard, 13-inch.............................................do___ 2.11
Disston’s combined steel.......................................... each..
tt.,Jr“ ston’s center......................................................... do___
■Harness snaps:
1J loop.............................................. per gross..
Yankee,” 1{ loop..................................................... d o ....
Lflmr?tr:
by’” N°- 733....................................................... d o ....
Lanm chimneys:
Hacbeth’s No. 502.................................................. per dor..
I ■'~-acfa?th'8 No. 504..................................................r .d o ....
j: nspnnPlors, Enterprise, No. 2 ................................each..
Plum bs!8? ? 11 s, 24minch bench......................................do----Eockptu^»d levels, Disston, No. 12.......................... per doz..
Rifles: Infe ani* to°* hit, Ulery’s ...............................per set.. :
Steveno'S
.55
P.ct.
22
19
102
83
66
45
34
40
25
29
20
27
.62
.19
12
12
2.70
2.90
2.70
3.60
3.98
3.75
33$
37
39
.40
.50
1.76
1.28
5.82
1.15
.68
.82
2.10
1.42
10.08
1.50
70
64
19
11
72
30
1.35
1.80
2.00
- ' no : & : ::::::::::::::::: d0:::: 2.50
: 3.47
2.20
1.75
2.20
2.60
3.00
4.50
2.61
30
22
30
20
30
18
17.48
19.98
19.42
11.90
9.00
.26
32.00
27
28
27
40
50
65
14
•17
Scout,” No. 14..............................each..
......................... r - j
I t e S : : ; y tu* w
Si. 84
2.52
.81
.88
.98
1.09
1.18
1.41
1.58
1.94
2.18
2.67
Dif
fer
ence.
13.74
........................» * £ • •• 1 15.39
1 15.25
hiss ton s butcher, 24-inch No 7
do
; 8.50
£i®Jon s framed wood, No* 10 ..............................do
6.00
Ramrs’sScombi’n2dnCh’ ,18'gauS0......................... per foot.. 1 .157
Screws, fiat-head
circuIar..................... cach- 28.00
Swe, \ inch, NosVl to 4
|}ze, f inch, Nos. o 4...................................... .. ^ oss-Hi20’ s jnch; Nos. 1 to 3............................................. *>■ — |
Size, } inch, No 4...................................................... do...... .
Scre^*> flat-head hrassw'oo'd:.........................................do— !
Size, 1 inch, No. 1 .
.
Size, finch, No o .......................................................—
Size, i inch, No. o.*.................................................... *
Size, finch, No. 6. ................................................. 2°
Size, j inch. No. r, ................................................... 3°- — 1
- ze, $ inch, No. 1.......
do
.034
.034
.034
.038
.04
.073
.073
.073
.076
.079
115
115
115
100
97$
.072
.084
.0S4
.096
.108
.136
.195
.211
.227
.251
89
132
151
136
132
.034
.06
Size, 1{inches, No. 1 0 ..............................................do
Size, 2 inches, No. 10..
....................................do ” !;
ReroSlZe’ 3 inches, No. 18... ...........................................do’""
^ q i« ri']DdChpa(1 l,rass wood:...............................................
Size, J nch, No. 1.....................
......... d o . ..
|^ > } i? c h no.6 ..............
Size. 11 inches, No. 10...............................................do___
Size, 2 inches, No. 10................................................ d o ....
c -S z z e 3 inches, No. IS..................................................d o ....
ShTOdressing- b>bsst'on s oiectrlc, 12-inch...................per doz.. !
- 10
.228
.412
.087
.112
.17
.378
.67
156
87
70
66
63
.072
.16
.336
.768
1.24
1.36
.168
.329
.776
1.955
3.646
1.86
133
106
131
155
194
37
Whittemore’s “ Gilt Edge”......................................d o ....
Shotg 1 ttcinoro’s “ Baby Elite” ................................... do___
1.20
.60
1. 75
.67
46
12
Stevens’ No. 105........................................................ each.. ! 2.80
Stevens’ No. 107........................................................ do ..
3.00
Stevens’ No. 225........................................................ do.. . .
8.67
smoked-beef shavers, Enterprise, No. 23.......................do...
4.32
Squares:
Disston’s try, rosewood, 10-lneh, No. 1............... per doz.. 1.66
Disston's steel, 4-inch................................................each.. 1-10
Traps, Lovell’s mouse and rat, metallic................. per gross.. 5.50
Trowels, Disston’s brick, 8-inch, No. 1...................... per doz.. 4.07
Vises:
Armstrong’s hinged, No. 1....................................... each.. 1.80
Armstrong’s combination, with leg sockets............do___ 6.40
Bonney’s No. 112...................................................per doz.. 2.25
Watches:
Elgin movement, 20-year gold-filled case...............each.. 7.98
Elgin movement, silveroidcase...............................do___ 3.04
Wrenches, Hawkeye “ 5 in 1” .................................per doz___ 3.60
4.25
4.50
9.75
5.55
52
50
12
28
2.88
1.46
7.33
6.00
72
13
33$
47
4.00
S.00
2.84
122
25
26
3277
deny to Americans, of whose patriotic self-sacrifice they take
wrongful advantage.
Protection’s favors to foreigners is strongly set forth in Senate
Document No. 54, Sixty-first Congress, first session, prepared
by James G. Parsons, and submitted by me to the Senate, and to
which I refer for the most abounding evidence for the truth of
my contention—that this bill and its immediate predecessors,
the Dingley bill and the McKinley bill, were written under the
color of serving the American laborer, when, in point of fact, it
has done nothing of the kind, but, on the contrary, favors the
foreigner at the expense of the American.
The defense of this indecent practice has been abundantly
answered in Document 54, and I shall not take the time to fur
ther comment upon it.
A similar table, showing that our prices are 50 per cent higher
than world prices, is submitted (Exhibit 12), prepared by Byron
W. Holt, of New York.
Our great agricultural products have their prices fixed by the
markets of the world, except where^ freight prevents.
The price of corn per bushel was 55 cents in 1S92 and 53 cents
in 1906, and wheat was 93 cents in 1891 and 82 cents In 1906,
and exported cattle in 1891, $81.25, and $93.17 in 1906 under
improved methods of feeding and_ transportation, while cotton
was 10 cents in 1890 and 11 cents in 1906.
We have a right to expect cheapening of manufactured prod
ucts because of the constant increasing improvements in ma
chinery—and in this we are disappointed—and a rise in the
price of agricultural products produced from an area necessarily
limited, and in this we are not gratified.
Thp nrnhihitivp tariff has increased the cost of living of the work
man and of every other person in the
^ a g e ^ re c e ’i ved 6’ therefore’
has dim in ish ed the p urch asin g pow er of the wages iec e iv e a .
I have submitted Table No. 202, Abstract of Census, 1907, page
577, which show’s that raw commodities have increased since
the Diugley bill went into effect 49.9 per cent, manufacturers
commodities Lave increased 32.3 per cent up to 190G, and all
commodities have increased 35.4 per cent up to 1, 06, and still
h lMrrpinesWent, I now submit Tables 197 and 206, which show
in detail the increase of price of food products, showing lard
to have increased, since 1896, 38 per cent, corn meal 29 per cent,
fresh pork 41 per cent, salt pork 5o per cent ( Statistical Ab
stract of Census, 1907), and similar increases in other things
required by the consumer.
LABOR IS HARMED BY THESE HIGH PRICES.
Mr. President, it is obvious that the laboring man who re
ceives a fixed wage, or the laboring woman who recei-.es a
given number of dollars, whether in the factory, on the farm,
in the mine, in the forest, or in domestic service by an increase
of 34 per cent in the price of all articles to be bought with
wages received will be required to pay $134 to buy the same
amount of goods w’hich cost $100 in 1S96 under the Wilson bill.
This means the equivalent of a flat loss of —j per cent of the
narrow wages received by the working people, and shows that
the results of this tariff have been seriously ^injurious to the
working people, because of these artificial prices.
HIGH PRICES INJURIOUS TO SALARIED PEOPLE.
Under these high prices it w-ould take, in 1906, $1,354 to buy
as much as $1,000 bought in 1896; in other words, a salaried
man who received a salary of $1,354 in 1896 could save out of
it $354, but to buy the same things in 1906 would take Ins en
tire salary of $1,354, and leave him nothing saved.
.
The effect of these high prices on the salaried man is to
diminish the purchasing power of his salary 25 per cent.
This is the probable reason why Congress raised the salaries
of Members of Congress and of Senators 50 per cen t; it was to
keep the Senators and Members of Congress from suffering the
injury which the Dingley bill inflicted on the balance of the
country.
HIGH PRICES ARE INJURIOUS TO THE MANUFACTLRERS.
High prices on raw material (and one manufacturer’s raw
material is the finished product of another manufacturer) has
the effect of making it more difficult for American manufac
turers to compete in the markets of the world, because their
first cost on this very account is heavier than would be the
(Senate Document No. 54, Sixty-first Congress, first session.)
case with their foreign competitors.
It Is thus seen that our own manufacturers, to obtain the
Our manufacturers do compete, however, on a considerable
protection from foreign competition, not only do not give Ameri scale, because of the greater efficiency^ of the American work
can consumers the low prices they are entitled to, but they man and of American invention and improved processes, and
give all the benefit to foreigners. These tables demonstrate because of rebates in foreign m aterial bought and reshipped in
that the pretense of high tariff to protect themselves against manufactures.
In this way a market is afforded foreign material and denied
the cheap labor of Europe is fa lse ; that our manufacturers can
compete and do compete in the open markets of the world, our own materials unless they compete w ith foreign material
and that they actually do give to foreigners the benefits they at world prices.
10.23
4.47
4.50
28
47
25
3278
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
But if the manufacturers could obtain a uniform cost of
material 35 per cent less than it is now our commerce would be
greatly multiplied, the activity of our factories wonderfully
stimulated, all of America’s laboring elements would be em
ployed, and the productive energies of the Nation brought to
the highest degree of activity and efficiency.
I f lower juices should prevail, w e would avoid the evil of
u n do consumption and need have no fea r of overproduction.
The percentage of weekly earnings, retail prices, and the
weekly earnings as measured by retail prices is shown by the
Bureau of Labor bulletin, July, 1905;
J unis 15,
pronounced the so-called “ trust ” an unlawful combination.
The reason why it was unlawful was because it violated the
common law of the English-speaking people. I t violated the
common law, which holds as void any contract in restraint of
trade. The common law of our States holds a man is entitled
to buy at a price fixed in a free competitive market, and that
any restraint of trade denying the citizen this common-law
right is a fraud upon him. The present tariff law and the
proposed law is conspicuously guilty of this sin, although its
4 rror has not y it been declared by the courts. A test case should
be brought.
Indeed it is a form of robbery under the color of law and
carried on under the safeguards of organized society; it is a
Weekly
fraud to impose a prohibitive tax under the pretense of raising
earnings
W eekly
earning's Retail as meas
revenue, but in reality to protect monopoly. It is a species
per em prices. ured by
of immoral conspiracy which ought not to be endured by any
retail
ployee.
prices.
nation of intelligent and liberty-loving men.
The contracts putting the control of the stock of competing
companies in the hands of a “ trustee,” being the first form in
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
P
e
r
c
e
n
t.
P e r c e n t.
1890
98.6 which organized monopoly became conspicuously bad, has led
102.4
101.0
1891
97.1 to the term “ trust ” being loosely and incorrectly used to de
100.8
103.8
1892
99.4 scribe any monopoly.
101.3
101.9
1893
96.9
101.2
104.4
1891
Second. Another expedient by which monopoly w as estab
98.0
97.7
99.7
1895
98.4
100.
G lished was “ a gentleman’s agreement,” by which prices were
97.8
1896
99.5
104.2
95.5
fixed by verbal agreement and not by contract. This was noth
1897,
99.2
103.0
96.3
1898,
99.9
101.2 ing more nor less than a verbal conspiracy, and was no less a
98.7
1899,
101.2
99.5
101.7 fraud and unlawful than if the verbal agreement had been a
1900,
104.1
101.1
103.0 legal contract in writing. The only difference between the two
1901,
105.9
105.2
100.7
1902,
109.2
110.9
98.5 was the greater difficulty of detection of the combination.
1903,
112.3
110.3
101.8
The gentleman’s agreement usually proved inefficient, because
1904,
112.2
111.7
100.4 men engaged in this character of fraud could not trust each
other.
100 equals the standard prices averaged between 1890-1900.
Third. Another form by which the American people have been
It w ill be observed that even by these tables, coming from defrauded by monopoly is where a giant corporation, like the
Standard
Oil Company, sets a fixed price on crude oil and a
sources interested in putting the best face on the matter the
Z kl^ aiS
S \ OU,ShL no more !n 3904 tlian they did between price on the refined products, and because of its power intimi
1S90 and 1900, while they rose in 1S9G to 104.2 from 96 9 in dates the independent refiner and compels the refiner through
1894, showing an increased purchasing power of over 7 per cent fear of destruction, in the crafty ways so fully described by
Ida Tarbell in the history of Standard Oil, to recognize and
following the passage of the Wilson—lower tariff—Act
Mr. President the tables prepared by Edward Atkinson, of maintain the prices so fixed. In this way the Standard Oil
(E? u9lt/ ) - sh+
° wm g the relative number of persons who Company, through its subsidiary companies, sets the price of
could be affected bj a tau ft as far as their wages are concerned crude oil in Oklahoma of the best quality at 41 cents a barrel.
m the so-called “ protected or partially p r o t S L d u s t r l ^ No refiner wishes to violate this rule for fear of the Standard,
and no refiner dares to offer to sell refined oil at less than the
in w iV fiK 6 r,G f01g0ttei1- xt vvl11 he shown by these tables that
10,381,765 pei sons are farmers, planters, overseers, agricul Standard price for fear of the Standard. It only costs one-half
cent
a gallon to refine petroleum, and crude oil costs 41 cents
tural laborers gardeners, florists, nurserymen, dairy men and
women and other agricultural pursuits; lumbermen and rafts a barrel in Oklahoma. The people ought to got very cheap oil,
men, stock raisers herders and drovers, turpentine farmers and but they do not get it, because the Standard Oil Company over
laborers, and wood choppers, to which must lie added all persons shadows the land and controls the market, both of crude oil and
in professional service 1,258,739; all persons in domestic and of the refined products.
It is a common practice for the independent refiners to stand
personal sendeeS 5,580,657; and all persons in trade and trans
portation, 4,iGG,964; making a total of 21,788,125; and estimating on the prices fixed by the Standard, both on crude and refined,
those who are engaged in other services which could not be for fear that they will be destroyed. The history of the past
regarded as in any degree open to competition, it is found that is strewn with the wreckage of companies who have ventured to
out of a total of 29,074,117 there could not be exceeding 600000 cut the prices of the Standard Oil Company.
I think the Congress of the United States ought to impose a
persons occupied in arts which would require a protective duty.
This table is very carefully drawn and is convincing to a sin rule on interstate corporations using the mails and enjoying public
cere and disinterested student. It therefore appears that very protection that they shall not vary their price to the consumers
little over 2 per cent of the American people are employed in of the United States, except in so far as the difference in freight
such a way as to really require any measure of so-called “ pro justifies. In this way the Standard Oil Company could not put
tection,” while 100 per cent of our people are taxed about 50 the price of refined below cost locally for the purpose of running
pei cent on an average on all dutiable goods, to their very great out an independent competitor in a local field while the Standard
injury, and without even benefiting the 2 tier cent who are em at the same time raises the price in another field, with which
ployees, mostly of foreign birth or parentage, in the so-called to make the consumer pay the cost of this illegitimate warfare
“ protected industries,” while nearly all of such industries are on a competitor. I f the Standard were compelled to give the
owned by monopolies who give their foreign employees the low same price plus freight in all parts of the United States to the
consumer, the Standard could not in that event afford to lower
est wages in America and keep millions for themselves.
its local price for the purpose of killing off a petty competitor.
MONOPOLY.
And I appeal to the leaders of the Republican party in the
This hill ought not to pass, because sim ilar hills heretofore Senate of the United States to bring in an amendment to this
have established, and this hill w ill continue to m aintain bill providing this remedy.
monopoly, labor's chief oppressor, and w ill be followed by Jiiah
I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Finance will
prices, low ivages, greater m ortality to labor, increased crime appreciate the force of this observation, and if he does not
and extravagant and corrupt standards.
afford the country the relief which I invite him to do he at
Mr. President, no man familiar with history of his countrv least shall have no complaint of me that he did not receive a
will seriously question that when the tariff has its schedules wise and virtuous suggestion from Oklahoma. I assure him
so high as to prevent competition from abroad it must engender that if he w ill submit the proper amendment he can rely upon
monopoly at home.
the Senators from Oklahoma giving him enthusiastic support
The first step of triumphant monopoly is to cut off foreign in such a policy.
competition; the next step is easily effected by any of a varietv
I pause to ask the chairman of the Committee on Finance
of successful expedients.
i whether he will bring in or support such an amendment.
First. By the policy of placing a control of the stock of com
I appeal to the leaders of the Republican party in the Senate
peting companies in the hands of a trustee for the purpose of the United States to bring in an amendment to the bill pro
of preventing competition. This was nothing more nor less viding this simple, effective remedy against monopoly. If We
than a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The courts in due time want to establish competition in the United States, if we hope
1909
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE,
3279
to maintain competition in the United States, we must protect able competition, but merely a just action in restoring the com
the little competitor and not permit him to be killed off by in petition which never should have been interfered with.
genious processes. Otherwise we might as well recognize now
The United States Steel Corporation, I am informed, permits
that monopoly is fixed and is to be dealt with as monopoly. If no organized labor in its service. The thoughtlessness of this
've deal with it as monopoly, then a different process would be monopoly of its labor, and its forgetfulness of its moral obliga
available, which I suggest to the Senate of the United States, tion toward poor human beings engaged in its service has been
and that is, conceding monopoly to be established, conceding shown with great force in a recent philanthropic investigation
that we can not control or that we will not control monopoly, conducted under the Russell Sage Foundation in the “ Pittsburg
t suggest that monopoly, having the power of taxation of the Survey.” What these giant monopolies are capable of doing
American people without limitations, shall be controlled by when not restrained by any other consideration than what is
0eia8 limited in the dividends it may pay upon its invested called “ business ” and the pressure for “ dividends,” “ divi
dends,” “ dividends,” is set forth in great detail in the Journal
caPltal> determined by physical valuation,
fourth. But another and far more dangerous form of monop- of Constructive Philanthropy, published by the Charity Organi
i , skillfully drawn to avoid the decisions of the Supreme zation Society of the City of New York, 105 East Twenty-second
str • t ° f tIle United States with regard to contracts in re- street, New York; Robert W. deForest, president; J. P. Morgan,
on o'. ° f *ra<*e> ^ the more recent successful plan of merging treasurer; Edwin T. Devine, general secretary, 105 East TwentySt,ltC01P°ration with another, such as illustrated in the United second street, New York City, in “ Charities and the Commons ”
porraf ^ eel Corporation, by which all competitors of any im- in the issues of January, February, and March, 1909.
What a monopoly tariff does for its protected workmen is
thne n?e Were absorbe<L It was organized in 1901, and at that
Stepo ab®orbe<l a number of gigantic concerns, to w it : Federal abundantly set forth in this wonderful report of the unspeak
able
conditions which have grown up under our system of
National Tube, American Steel and Wire Company,
Ampr§teel> American Tin Plate, American Steel Hook, government, where the beneficiaries of the tariff have forgotten
Carnn0?11 Sbeet Steel, American Bridge, Shelby Steel Tube, The manhood, and have forgotten womanhood, and even childhood
Mines816 ( '<impa?y> The Lake Superior Consolidated Iron in their insane pursuit of wealth and power.
Ida M. Tarbell, a critical and learned student of sociology,
such !,/'! ? acquired interests in numerous other companies,
\[jninfrs ,, e Pittsburg Steamship Company, The Oliver Iron has described it in a few words in the American Magazine of
Shaven 0?n\pany> Tbc National Steel Company, including The May, 1909:
Minin<» r?tee Company, The Union Steel Company, The Donora
A TARIFF-MADE CITY--- WHAT IT DOES FOR ITS WORKMEN.
Comn-iTi^01n'nany’ ^ be Republic Coke Company, The River Coal
The city of Pittsburg is the greatest monument in this country to
Panv Tn
Sharon Coke Company, The Sharon Ore Com- the practice of high protection. For fifty years it has been the strong
of the doctrine. For fifty years it has reaped, as no other center
terest in ?i ^baron Sheet Steel Company, and a controlling in- hold
in the United States, the benefits of prohibitive duties.
Panv ..nu
c®1.ni)anies of the Sharon Coal and Limestone ComThe town lies at the heart of a district in which is produced from
rectlv cmw ir karon ^iu Riate Company, and directly and indi- one-quarter to one-half of all the various kinds of American iron and
as well as a goodly proportion of all our tin, plate glass, and
tal cv.L,. ,l,ro u:ig tbe American Coke Company, The Continen- steel,
machine-shop products. Ail of these articles have for years had the
Clure Pei.S0n r,any’ Tbe H - C. Frick Coke Company, The Mc- American market practically to themselves. All of these articles have
panv and t i,
The Southwest Connellsville Coke Com- for years been exported and sold at less prices than the American con
can buy them. All these industries have produced enormous
nnder the tm
*lted Coal aQd Coke Company, consolidated sumer
fortunes. So many, so conspicuous are they, that a. recognized American
the Clairton
? ’ C- Prick Coke Company, acquiring also type in Europe and the United States is the Pittsburg millionaire. ’
nace Comrmnv P , 9 0mI>any in May, 1904, The St. Clair Fur- Now, it is certain the tariff produced the Pittsburg millionaire, but
was not what the tariff was fixed for by theCongress of the United
Champion Trnn r< 1S contraet carried with it the stock of the that
States. The tariff was laid to protect an<t help
,wor^manClair Terminal P °p P an.V> The Clairton Land Company, the S t According to the protectionist argument, Pittsburg, as the bulwark and
of the St Pin in rai roacl Company, and 51 per cent of the stock center of protected industries, should produce the happiest, most pros
and best conditioned workmen in the United States. How is it?
lor Coke Pom non‘nieStone Company; in April, 1905, the Heck- perous,
There has just been published in Chanties and The Commons (now
United States suZi
?c0«ired. On April 15, 1907, by lease The Su rvey) one of the most significant p ie « s of investigation the
Railroad p ™, htee obtained the control of the Great Northern country has seen. It is the result of a
+uarr'»,orl-Aho
of a band of trained investigators commissioned by the Charities
Mining pnm„ l0ny ore Properties through the Great Western part
Publication committee. It gives a blueprint of Iittsb u ig;^ the place
Steel r w n 1 *}!ly’ a subsidiary company of the United States itself, the people, and their work. What does this blueprint show of
.
the workingman under protection?
____
T h eS
0n’ and so fortbshows him working twelve hours a day for sev en days in the week,
their
mergers of the various companies, by which andIt once
in two weeks filling a “ long turn, or a twenty-four-hour shift.
formed .'.ToLtion with each other was effectually destroyed, It is not simply the exceptional man who overworks m this cruel fash
bonds
GJlew company, which issued a total of stocks and ion. The twelve-hour day is the extreme of an altogether incredible
of overwork by everybody,” so the Survey declares. Can you
WHidi w-1 abont fourteen hundred millions, a large part of amount
make a mnn by these hours? Is it any wonder that those who lived
with
VaPS watered,” having no physical value corresponding j and walked among these men preparing this Survey report their saying:
“ Too tired to read— too tired to think. I work and eat and sleep.”
In in n -aC<^ va}ues °* the stocks and bonds issued,
see r> i t llis gigantic merger company took over the Tennes- Any wonder that they report the God-fearing women crying out for the
old country : “ We might, not have been able to live so well th ere; but,
un«oi f Iron an,l Railroad Company, which was itself com- oh, man, we could have brought up the children in the fear o’ God and
, e, .u °f various companies merged together in the same fashion in a land where men reverence the Sabbath.” Any wonder that those
C n~ e United States Steel Corporation, and was its only great men who have not the restraining influence of a family drown fatigue
night in saloons and brothels?
mpetttor; under the control of this great merger company are at And
what do they earn for their toil? In the tariff-protected ln(i as'
arious water-supply plants, natural-gas properties, pipe lines, tries, steel and iron, the greatest number receive a wage, says the
re docks, a multitude of iron mines, and some 25 railroad report, “ so low as to be inadequate to the maintenance of a normal
American standard of living— wages adjusted to the single man in the
companies.
lodging house, not to the responsible head of a family.’ And this in
By these gigantic mergers competition is effectually con industries where “ to protect the workingman ” this country has tor
trolled under the forms of law, and the resulting giant corpora years taxed itself millions upon millions of dollars. The estimated
tariff profit in the steel trust alone in 1907 was $80,000,000. \i ho got
tion has such a dominating and masterful position that smaller the
money? Go look at the steel palaces and chateaux in New lork
corporations dare not compete or cut the price or attempt to and Paris. Go ask the Pittsburg millionaires who fill the glittering
places of pleasure in the great cities of Europe and this country, who
do so. Competition is thus utterly destroyed.
figure in divorce and murder trials, who are writing then names on
Moody’s Manual for 1907, page 2320, gives over 1,000 com foundations and bequests and institutions.
. . ,. , - ,
How does th is “ protected” workingman live? What kind of house
panies absorbed or merged by or into other companies for 1907
are these “ builded on steel?” The reporter of the situation
The smaller corporations engaged in the same business are holds
summarizes them : “ E vil conditions were found
exist *n every sec
indeed of some use to the giant monopoly, because the smaller tion of the city. Over the omnipresent vaults graceless P r iv y s h e d s
hillsides
corporation being in existence and doing business at the same flouted on&s sense of decency. Eyrie rookeries
re swarming w ith men, women, and children enure j a mutes living
prices fixed by the larger corporation, the greater concern can tee
in one room and accommodating hoarders i» a corner thereof. Cellar
point to the smaller concern as evidence to the common people rooms were the abiding places of other families. In many houses w ater
that there is active competition In the field. The common people was a luxury, to be obtained only through much, effort of toiling steps
and straining muscles. Courts and alleys fouled by bad drainage and.
may accept the testimony, but it will be a Barmecide feasr piles
of rubbish were playing grounds for rickety, pale-faced, grim y
when they test the prices.
children. An enveloping cloud of smoke and dust, through which Hgjit
When the people threaten to remove the monopoly tariff and air m ust filter. made housekeeping a travesty in many neighbor
hoods; and every phase of the situation was intensified by the evil of
which shelters monopoly, all of the agents o f monopolv join in overcrowding—
of houses upon lots, of families into houses,\ of pcovle
one mighty chorus in defense of the poor little independent man into rooms.”
*
Among the worst illustrations of these typical conditions are certain
who will be utterly ruined if the tariff is lowered a particle. properties
owned by the very corporations who are reaping wealth frr.™
But the smaller concern is used as a highwayman might hold the tariff-protected products. These beneficiaries of the g e n e r o s itv ^
up a child to ward off a merited chastisement. It is, however, the American people, these gentlemen who, when they see the
their interest threatened, hold up the laborer and his vi>nf]Xaot 0n
no chastisement and no injustice whatever to the monopoly to in
reason for continuing it, what do they say when these condHiJnJ19., a
take down the tariff wall that shelters monopoly from reason pointed out to them : “ We don’t
go into
want to
thThouZgTuJncss6.
3280
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE
W e are m anufacturers, n o t real e sta te dealers. W e m ay be forced to
buikl houses in certain new d is tric ts in order to a ttr a c t and hold labor,
but in an old, se ttle d com m unity le t the laboring man take care of
him self. W e don’t believe in pa tern a lism .”
They have had no more interest in preserving the lives o f the men
who do the terrible toil necessary to their w ealth than in giving them
decent housing. For years the death rate from typhoid fever in P itts
burg has been the highest of any city in the civilized world. Everybody
knew it. Everybody knew why. There w as no supply of pure drinking
water. A filtration plant was needed. Did any Pittsburg m illionaire
offer to build it— in sist th at the industries which called the vast army
of labor to Pittsburg should build it ? N o ; they le ft a corrupted city
governm ent to fight over the appropriations for the work and scattered
in endowm ents and in institution s in other cities and other States many
tim es the five m illions needed in Pittsburg to save the lives of the
workmen. They hold up to the world for admiration their love of
great m aterial problems— they argue w ith the American people that
their skill in solving these problems is a good and sufficient reason for
continuing general taxation in their favor
But a problem which,
worked out, would benefit nobody but the humble two-dollar-a-day man
who sw eats out his life in the heat of their profitable furnaces does not
interest them. I t m ight savor of paternalism !
Not even the child has touched them
The conditions under which
the children of the poor are brought up in Pittsburg are such th at
babies die like flies. Of those along the river, a settlem ent worker told
Samuel Hopkins Adams, when he was working on health conditions for
the Survey : “ N o t one child in ten comes to us from the river-bottom .
section ic ith o u t a blood or skin disease, usu ally of long standing. N ot
one out of ten comes to us p h y sica lly up to the norm al for his or her
age. Worse than th a t, few of them are up to the m ental standard, and
an increasing percentage are im becile.”
As to the schools, here is w hat an authority s a y s : “ The school
buildings are in m any cases crow ded, dark, d irty , often of three stories,
and bad fire risks. The condition of th e children in these schools, good
and bad, rich and poor, m a y be known by the large proportion having
defective teeth , reduced hearing, im perfect vision. An excessively large
number of them are m outh breathers, p a rtia lly so because th ey arc
unable to breathe through th e ir noses in the sm oky air of P ittsb u rg ,
and a v ery considerable number are below the sta tu re and the weight
determ in ed for the average child. In a large percentage the defects of
te e th , nose, and th ro a t bring them below th e physical normal. These
are the children th a t w ear out in childhood.”
Is it a wonder th a t th is gentlem an su g g ested :
“ O ught n o t the P ittsb u rg schools to be closed and th e children
repairedV ’
This Pittsburg Survey is the most aw ful arraignment of an American
in stitu tio n and its resulting class pronounced since the days of slavery.
I t puts upon the Pittsburg m illionaire the aw ful stam p of greed, of
stupidity, and of heartless pride. B ut w hat should we expect of him?
He is the creature of a special privilege which for years he has not
needed. He has fought for it because he fattened on it. He must
have it for labor. B ut look a t him and look at his laborer and believe
him if you can.
Justice takes a terrible revenge on those who thrive by privilege.
She blinds their eyes u n til th ey no longer see human misery. She dulls
their hearts until they no longer beat w ith hum anity. She benumbs
their senses until they respond only to the narrow horizon of w hat
they can individually possess, touch, feel. She makes, as she has in
Pittsburg, a generation o f men and women who day by day can pass
hundreds of tumbled-down and filthy homes, in which the men and
women who make their w ealth live, and feel no shock ; who can know
that deadly fevers and diseases which are preventable are w iping out
hundreds o f those who do their tasks, and raise no hand. L ittle chil
dren may die or grow up stunted and evil w ithin their sight and no
penny of their w ealth, no hour o f their leisure, is given them. Women
may pass hours o f incessant to il and die, broken and unhonored, w ithin
their sight, and they raise no hand. W ealth which comes by privilege
kills. The curse of Justice on those who w ill not recognize injustice
is the sodden mind, the dulled vision, the unfeeling heart.
I. M. T.
I was interested after reading th is distressing record of the
m isery and degradation o f the employees in protected industries
a t Pittsburg, and their great poverty, to observe, in striking con
trast, that Mr. PI. 0 . Frick, one of the m asters of the iron, steel,
and coke monopoly, w as reported by the public press as trying
to buy an oil painting by Holbein from the Duke of Norfolk for
$350,000. I could not help thinking how scandalous it w as to
take the labor of these poor people and dissipate it in such folly.
The papers announce also that Mr. Schwab, another steel mag
nate, w as successfully “ bucking the tig e r ” a t Monte Carlo, and
gambling on a gigantic scale. No doubt he has m illions which
he may hazard a t the gambling table and not feel the loss, but
where does he get it? He gets it out of the grimy sw eat of a
labor so poorly paid that the women and children must, of
necessity, suffer degradation and physical, social, and spiritual
degeneration.
The morning papers state that a New York lady now suing
her husband for divorce has spent in the last ten years $770,000
in various interesting and fanciful extravagances, paying from
$500 to $800 for dresses, having scores of servants to dance at
tendance and promote the w ildest vagaries of fashion. One can
not pick up a paper w ithout reading the unseemly and indecent
w aste of the national resources by those beneficiaries who profit
by monopolies sheltered under a noncompetitive tariff, one
which prevents all competition, and gives them the power to
combine a t home for the purpose of fleecing the American peo
ple and picking their pockets wholesale by prices which are 50
per cent higher than the prices in the markets of the world.
Side by side are babies dying like flies for want of proper food
and air and decent environment. The omnipotent God w ill
surely punish a nation or a party that sees these evils w ith
callous heart and offers no remedy.
J uste 15,
Some one m ight say that Ida Tarbell's picture is too graphic.
I do not think it possible to convey in two pages the terrific
arraignment of our civilization which is exhibited in the P itts
burg Survey.
But I submit another authority, whose calm and disinterested
judgment and statem ent of the facts ought to command the
attention o f the entire nation.
RESULTS OP PITTSBURG SURVEY.
Prof. Edward T. Devine, of New York City, general secretary
of the Charity Organization Society of the City of New York
(see Yol. I l l , Amer. Sociological Soc., May 1, 1900), gives a
sketch of the results of the Pittsburg Survey, describing what
w as found to be the actual fact at this great center of the pro
tective industries. He says they found the folloV ing r e su lts: '
I. An altogether incredible am ount of overw ork by everybody, reach
ing its extrem e in the twelve-hour sh ift for seven days in the week
in the steel m ills and the railw ay sw itch yards.
II. Low w ages for th e grea t m a jo rity of the laborers employed by
the m ills ; not lower than in other large cities, but low compared with
the prices— so low as to be inadequate to the m aintenance of a normal
Am erican stan dard of liv in g ; w ages a d ju sted to the single m an, not to
the responsible head of a fam ily.
III. S till low er icages for w om en, who receive, for example, in one
of the metal trades in which the proportion of women is great enough
to be menacing, one-half as m uch as unorganized men in the sam e shops
and one-third as much as th e men in th e union.
IV. A n absentee capitalism , w ith bad effects strikingly analogous to
those of absentee landlordism, of w hich also Pittsburg furnishes note
w orthy examples.
V. A continuous inflow of im m igran ts ivitli low stan dards attracted
by a wage which is high by the standards of southeastern Europe, and
which yields a net pecuniary advantage because of abnorm ally low
expenditures for food and sh elter, an inadequate provision for sickness
accident, and death.
VI. The destruction of fam ily life, not in any imaginary or mystical
sense, but by the demands of the day's work, and by the very demon
strable and material method of typhoid fever and industrial accidents
both preventable, but costing last year in Pittsburg considerably more
than a thousand lives, and irretrievably shattering many homes.
VII. A rchaic social in stitu tio n s such as the aldermanic court, the
ward school district, the fam ily garbage disposal, and the unregenerate
charitable institution , still surviving after the conditions to which they
were adapted have disappeared.
V III. The con trast— which does not become blurred by fam iliarity
w ith details, but on the contrary becomes more vivid as the outlines
are filled in— the co n tra st between the prosperity on the one hand of
the m ost prosperous of all the com m unities of our western civilization
w ith its vast natural resources, the generous fostering of government’
the human energy, the technical development, the gigantic tonnage of
the mines and m ills, the enormous capital of which the bank balances
afford an indication, and, on the other hand, th e n eglect of life, of
health, of physical vigor, even of the in d u stria l efficiency of th e indi
vidual. Certainly no community before in America or Europe has ever
had such a surplus, and never before has a g rea t com m unity applied
w h a t i t had so m eagerly to th e ratio n a l purposes of human life. Not
by g ifts of libraries, galleries, technical schools, and parks, but by the
cessation of to il one day in seven, and sixteen hours in the tw en ty-fou r
by the increase of icages, by th e sparing of lives, by th e prevention 0t
accidents, and by raisin g the stan dards of dom estic life, should th e
surplus come back to the people of th e com m unity in w hich it is
created.
The details of this tragic condition is found in tlie January,
February, and March numbers of Charities and Commons, 190d]
published in New York.
Mr. President, I have not the slightest doubt that the great
and powerful city of Pittsburg, supplied as it is w ith some of the
best brains and best men in tbe world, w ill correct, or a t least
abate, in some degree these conditions. I have no doubt that
public sentiment throughout tbe United States w ill so influence
our great commercial monopolies that they them selves w ill be
led to a more considerate treatm ent of their laborers and cease
to regard them as machines of iron or wood, to be worn-out iu
production and renewed by others. I have the confidence in the
patriotism and good sense of the leaders of both of the great
parties of our country to believe that they w ill not endure the
prolonged continuance of these conditions.
THE PROFITS OF MONOPOLY.
The Senator from Iow a gave us a graphic description of the
unreasonable profits of the United States Steel upon its watered
stock. Its net earnings after paying interest on bonds of sub
sidiary companies and the accounts of m iscellaneous expendi
tures and charges amounted to one hundred and fifty-six mil
lions. Its products for 1906 amounted to 13,511,149 tons of in
gots, out of which w as produced 10,578,433 tons of finished
products.
Its assets for 1906 are stated (Moody’s Manual, p. 2282) at
$1,681,309,769; its net profits for dividends 1906 were $98,219088, exceeding $9 a ton on 10,578,433 tons of product, not count
ing profits to subordinate corporations.
Its profit on the finished product has exceeded $9 a ton
collected from the consumers of the United States under a’
tariff which prohibits the consumer buying elsewhere, and thus
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3281
n a il s .
Per ton.
enables this gigantic corporation and its independent allies to
United States__________________________________________________ $47. 13
exercise a complete monopoly of all our people.
United States duty__________________________________________
11. 20
, 7-Ee l1r°IJ0Sed schedule in this bill of 31.65 per cent average
ariff upon all metal and all manufactures of metal operates not
United States price, less duty---------------------------------------- 35. 93
erm any______________________________________________
33. 60
. ar i k ljeuefit of b'bor, but to establish monopolies which con- G
France________________________________________________________ 34. 60
o labor, compel it to disorganize, imposes cruelty and extraor- Belgium______________________________________________________ 33. 00
nsny conditions upon labor,.and, together with other rnonopoUnited States production, wire nails, 1906, 512,800 to n s; United
les, established in like manner, pick the pockets of the labor States duty, $11.20 per to n ; tax on consumer, $o,743,360 ; government
revenue,
1907. $91; cost to the people for each dollar collected by the
e r ? - ° f ab other men from the Atlantic to the Pacific by Government,
$63,114.85.
1
Prices, which the i-etailer and jobber is compelled by
BfiSUMfi.
observe, so that the wages received by labor is
' ‘V an<l fraudulently taken out of his pockets by these
Cost to
•mix fn f orgaaiz.ations, whose lobbyists now infest this capital
the peo
ple for
a<ivise Senators and Members w ith regard to their
U nited States
People pay
each $1
uut> m the premises.
revenue.
additional.
tax col
h u n d re d
Witb these abnormal developments will be found
lected by
the Gov
able nrnfito thousands of honest companies, working at reasonernment.
ancient m axfm ^f
*n legitimate competition, content w ith the
and w?
Live and Iet llve’
0 are als° victimized by the exactions of monopoly in
T h f . f leSS degree as the case may be.
rnnfo l,llcea which are lowered in the United States by legitinrica« °pn^)etl*:iou are 80 far offset by the unreasonable high
thp
1!lonoI,°l.V that the general average has gone far above
\ri- ‘'p et8 ° f tile world, as 1 have heretofore shown.
pnr.„ ’ J resident, sevei-al Senators have shown on the floor the
Tb ^OUS.P ro? ts n,ade by various monopolies.
20,r L autboritative record can be found in Moody's Manual of
of fli a v°luiue of twenty-five hundred pages, giving the accounts
m
corporations doing business in the country, but not by any
ans a11 ° f the monopolies. In these tables w ill be found the
In rulous Profits which have been advertised to the public stating What they have made. The record does not tell the entire
srory by any means, but it tells enough. The manner in which
I*60!*!0 of the United States are unjustly taxed by these
artificial high prices in the interest of monopoly is shown by
sugar.
Our record shows that the people of the United States con
sume 2,993,979 tons of sugar per annum. The London price is
2 cents a pound less than the New York price, so that the people
pay about $40 a ton for sugar in excess of the London price_
approximately one hundred and thirty millions of dollars—
while the duty collected is only sixty millions, leaving a profit
of seventy m illions to the monopolies and interests protected by
the tariff, amounting in this one item to about $5 per annum for
every fam ily in the United States.
In similar manner w ill be shown the profits to the trusts on
pig iron, on steel billets, on steel rails, as compiled by the
Actuary of the Treasury. (S. Doc. 45, 61st Cong., 1st sess.)
Per to n .
p i g ir o n .
United States___________________________________________$17. 75
United States duty______________________________________
4. 00
United States price, less duty--------------------------------------- 13. 75
G erm any______________________________________________________ 11.21
France________________________________________________________
11. 25
B elgium _______________________________________________________ 1 1 .7 5
1 1.00
E ngland_______________________________________________
United States production of pig iron. 1907, 25,781,301 to n s ; duty,
SI per to n ; tax on consumer, $103,125,444; government revenue, 1907,
$1,400,825.
BILLETS, STEEL.
Per ton.
United States__________________________________________________ $24. 71
United States
duty____________________________________
6. 72
United States value, less duty--------------------------------------17. 99
G erm any______________________________________________________ 14. 88
F rance________________________________________________________ 1 5 .0 0
Belgium _______________________________________________________ 1 5.50
E ngland------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- 15.14
United States production.
1900,23,398,130 to n s ; duty,
$0.72 per
t o n ; tax onconsumers,$157,235,474; government revenue, 1906,
$590,063.
.
'
r a il s , s t e e l .
Per ton.
United S tates_________________________________________________ $25.41
United States du ty___________________________________________
7. 84
United States price, less du ty.
-----------------------------
XLIV-
-200
$2.17
71.23
267.05
943.91
63,114.85
CENSUS PROFITS ON WOOL MANUFACTURING, CLOTHING, AND TILE.
N u m b e r o f e s t a b lis h m e n t s -----------------------------------------8’
E x p en ses;
, ,
* or, , , , _ „
S a la r i e s p a id 2 8 .4 5 4 o ffic ia ls a n d c le r k s ----------------------- $ 3 0 , 0 1 o , 5 2 1
W a g e s p a id 3 9 4 ,8 9 3 w o r k m e n ------------------------------------------------------ 5 0 3 , 0 4 2
M is c e lla n e o u s e x p e n s e s ----------------------------------------------------------£ 0 4 ,8 6 7
V a lu e o f p r o d u c t ________________________________________________
9 1 1 ,3 9 9 ,8 4 1
P r o f i t _____________________________________________________ 1 0 5 , 3 1 3 , 6 7 3
C a p i t a l ____________________________________________________________5 2 9 , 8 9 2 , 7 4 0
A p p r o x im a t e ly 2 0 p e r c e n t.
MEN'S CLOTHING.
N u m b e r o f e s t a b lis h m e n t s _____________________■______
4 >304
E xp en ses :
S a la r i e s p a id 1 3 ,2 1 0 o ffic ia ls a n d c le r k s ---------------------------- $ 1 3 , 7 0 3 , 1 6 2
W a g e s p a id 1 3 7 ,1 9 0 w o r k m e n ---------------------------------------------- 5 7 , 2 2 5 , 5 0 6
M e n o v e r 1 6 _______________________________
§ 8, 769
W o m e n o v e r 1 6 __________________________‘ R> 4 6 8
C h ild r e n u n d e r 1 6 ________________________
M is c e lla n e o u s e x p e n s e s _____________________________________
5 7 ,6 9 5 ,2 4 0
M a t e r ia ls __________________________________________________ 1 8 5 , 7 9 3 , 4 3 0
T o t a l e x p e n s e s ___________________________________________ 3 1 4 , 4 1 7 , 3 4 4
V a lu e o f p r o d u c t______ _________________________________________ 3 5 5 , 7 9 6 , 5 7 1
P r o f i t --------------------------------------------------------------------------------41, 879 227
C a p i t a l ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 5 3 , 1 7 7 , 5 0 0
A b o u t 2 7 p e r c e n t.
WOMEN'S CLOTHING.
N u m b e r e s t a b lis h m e n t s _______________________________
3, 351
S a la r ie s p a id 1 0 ,9 2 0 o ffic ia ls a n d c le r k s ---------------------------------$9,
W a g e s p a id 1 1 5 ,7 0 5 w o r k m e n _________________________________
51.
M en o v e r 1 6 _____________________________________________ 4 2 , 6 1 4
W o m en o v e r 1 6 _______________________________________ 7 2 , 2 4 2
C h ild r e n u n d e r 1 6 _____________________________________
849
M is c e lla n e o u s e x p e n s e s _________________________________________
24,
M a t e r i a l s ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 3 0 ,
9 7 5 944
180. 193
349 282
719* 9 9 6
V a lu e
T o t a l e x p e n s e s ----------------------------------------------------------------------------2 1 6 ° 2 5 4 1 5
p r o d u c t----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 247,’ 661,’ 5 6 0
-
P r o f it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A b o u t 4 2 p e r c e n t.
3 1 ,4 3 6 ,1 4 5
’
’
6
BRICK AND TILE.
N u m b e r o f e s t a b lis h m e n t s _________________________
4 634
S a la r i e s p a id 3 ,6 9 0 o ffic ia ls a n d c l e r k s _________I ______ ’____
W 'ages p a id 6 6 ,0 2 1 w o r k m e n __________________________________
M is c e lla n e o u s e x p e n s e s ___________________ __________ _____ __
C o s t o f m a t e r i a ls ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
T o t a l e x p e n s e _____________________________________
p r o d u c t .1! --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 " "
A b o u t 2 2 p er c e n t.
D ifference.
7. 27
United States production of steel rails, 1907, 3,977,872 to n s; differ
ence in price, home and abroad. J57.27; tax on consumer, $28,919,129;
government revenue, 1907, $30,670.
$70,641,821.00
103.125.444.00
157.235.474.00
28,919,129.00
5,743,360.00
Census Bulletin No. 57, 1905, gives the following statistics on
woolen and worsted goods and clothing manufactures, and so
forth, from which the profit can be calculated :
V a lu e
1 8 .1 4
25. 41
$60,135,181.00
1,466,825.00
590,663.00
30,670.00
91.00
Census Bulletin No. 57, 1905, points out the coiifessed profits
on various manufacturing enterprises, a few of w hich I give.
1 7.57
G erm any------------------------------------France---------------------------------------Belgium —-----------------------------------E n g la n d ------------------------------------Average of above— Europe.
United States price---------------------
Sugar..................
Pig ir o n ............
Steel billets, etc
Steel rails.........
Nails, w ire.......
$ 3 kqg
2 8 ’ 646* n o g ’ r,ftn’ r x ?
l e ! 3 1 6 !4 9 9
‘v T 'T ftiT T ™
1 5 ’ 6 8 9 >9 2 8
The profit on men’s clothing amounts to 27 per cent on
women’s clothing 42 per cent, and yet side by side w ith ’this
manufacturer’s profit the sw eating system is in full force tun
interesting account of which w ill be found in H. Rept. No 2‘V)<)
52d Cong., 2d sess.), w ith ruinous conditions under which
oppressed labor earns its miserable bread; industrious young
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
J u n e 15,
women, twelve Lours a day in the shops of unremitting industry, exhibit a very great m ortality as compared w ith other people
and increasing speed, earning $4, $5, and $6 a week. For a $10 and develop tuberculosis and other diseases.
The Congressional R ecord of June 4, 1009, gives a table of
su it 85 cents is paid for the m aking of a coat, 25 to 35 cents
for the pants, and 20 to 25 cents for the v e s t; for a $15 suit some of the profits of the cotton m ills of the country, submitted
$1.50 is paid for making the coat, and so on. It is no wonder, by Senator S m itii of South Carolina. I ask that it be print**!
of course, people living in abject wretchedness of the sw eat shops in the R ecord.
S ta tistic s rela tive to cotton-m ill stocks as in vestm en ts.
Name of company.
Amoskeag -............................................... .
Androscoggin...........................................
Bates_______________ ____________
Border City..........................................
Richard Borden_______ ________
King Philip---------------- ---------------- D artm outh.-......................................
Dwight_______________________
Great Palls...........................................
Laurel L a k e __________________
Massachusetts Cotton......................
Lawrence................ ..................... .
Pacific______________________
Pepperell---...................... ........
Sagamore_________________
Troy......... ............... ....................
Union__________________ . . .
Whitman.....................................
Date of
incor
pora
tion.
1831
1860
1852
1880
1871
1871
1895
1841
1823
1881
1839
1831
1853
1899
1879
1814
1879
1895
Earn
Surplus.
$5,760,000.00 $3,720,691.00
1.123.864.00
1,000,000.00
1.376.361.00
1,200,000.00
333.598.00
1,000,000.00
502.174.00
1,000,000.00
1.500.000. 00 851.765.00
685.105.00
600,000.00
1.200.000. 00 1.299.219.00
1.500.000. 00 960.000.
184.251.00
600,000.00
1.800.000. 00 1.431.690.00
1.250.000. 00 787.000.
3.000.
000.006.332.8.54.00
2.556.000. 00 1.628.487.00
900.000.
00 355.693.00
300.000.
00 474.294.00
1.200.000. 00 584.044.00
945.411.00
1,500,000.00
0 In addition to -which a 25 per cent dividend w as paid.
For eight years average annual dividends for group, 15.65 per cent.
The merger in the capital of earnings is not shown, nor in
plant improvements out of earnings, which would make the
earnings still larger. W. Irving Bullard, of Danielson, Conn.,
a great cotton manufacturer, is quoted as saying a t Boston
April 16, 1908;
A summary o f 100 cotton m ills In Oldham district, in England, shows
the follow ing remarkable f a c t s : Capital invested, $30,501,230 ; net earn
ings, $6,605,785 ; average earning per mill, $66,055 ; dividend, 155 per
cent.
The average dividend disbursements for these 100 mills was 155 per
cent, w hile the net earnings show an average of 35J per cent.
The indecent treatm ent of helpless labor by organized capital
is not confined to America, but w e ought to lead the world in
the conservation of human life and unrewarded toil by law s
w isely and humanely drawn.
The recent giant monopolies, engendered and sheltered by the
prohibitive tariff, are responsible for the unrest of the country.
The American Tobacco Company, which has become suffi
ciently powerful to fix the price of all tobacco raised in the
United States, advertises its assets for 1906 at $278,628,564.
By merger and otherwise it controls the American Cigar Com
pany, American Stogie Company, the Havana Tobacco Company,
w ith various subcompanies, the American Snuff Company, the
Lorillard Company, and so forth. The impatience and violence of
the tobacco raisers in Kentucky and Tennessee, known as
th e “ N ight Riders,” is due directly to the tyranny of th is com
pany, which, being strong enough to control prices, is enabled
to exercise its w ill on the tobaceo growers, who have been mak
ing a blind effort to protect them selves by force. In like man
ner the crushing effect o f extreme poverty, due to the processes
which I have described, is leading to actual crime in many w ays
and is responsible for the growth o f radical socialism and an
archism throughout the world.
DISTRIBUTION
Capi
Total Average Book
Divi
dividends surplus taliza Par
per
dends, dividends
tion
for
eight
for
eight
per
value..
share, 1907.
per
years.
years.
share.
1907.
spindle.
ings
Capital.
of w ea lth.
In The Social Unrest, John Graham Brooks, on page 161,
quoting Tliorold Rogers (O xford Econom y), says:
In a vague w ay they (the laborers) are under the impression th at
the greater part of the misery which they see is the direct product ©f
the laws enacted and m aintained in the interest o f particular classes.
A n d on th e w hole th ey are in th e right.
Debt.
$1,425,000.00
16,559.00
117.565.00
500.000.
541.00
150.431.00
470.529.00
735.740.00
00 338.603.00
None.
2,160,763.00
00 500.000.
None.
117.940.00
607.899.00
2,816.00
None.
474.245.00
$21.30
24.91
41.87
00
37.50
32.62
25.65
82.50
103.94
21.33
28.24
41.30
00
25.27
550.00
48.53
335.00
46.00
29.76
$16.00
10.00
35.00
23.50
20.00
6.00
66.00
12.00
12.00
14.00
5.00
8.00
320.00
12.00
30.00
67.00
35.50
8.00
Per cent. Per cent.
126
$64.59
15.75
112.38
75
9.37
16.25
114.61
130
119
14.87
33.35
50.21
12.62
“101
21.25
56.78
168J
158
19.75 114.18
108.26
100
12.50
14.62
117
64.00
11190|
23.75
37.08
6.25
79.53
50
122
15.25
62.90
124
15.50 2,110.95
158
19.75
63.71
85
10.63
39.52
23.62
189
794.90
183
48.67
22.87
63.02
581
7.25
$10.75
13.93
14.61
12.51
10.37
11.10
5.00
5.45
11.36
10.03
14.13
12.50
10.27
9.80
6.31
10.89
11.35
$100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1,000.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
6 In addition to which a 100 per cent dividend w as paid.
inequality still greater. The rich w ill be grow ing r ic h e r ; the poor at
least relatively poorer. It seems to me, apart altogether from the ques.
tlon of the laborers’ interest, th at these are not conditions which fur
nish a solid basis for a progressive social s t a t e ; but, having regard to
th at interest, I think the considerations adduced show th at the first
and indispensable step tow ard any serious amendment of the laborer’s
lot is th at he should be, in one w ay or another, lifted out of the groove
in which he at present works and placed in a position compatible with
his becoming a sharer in equal proportion w ith others in the general
advantages arising from industrial progress.
Spahrs’s table for the distribution of w ealth in the United
States, taken from his work, “ The Present Distribution of
W ealth in the United States,” when our national w ealth was
$60,000,000, is as follow s:
Class.
Families.
Per
cent.
Very poor................................
125,000
1,362,600
4,762,500
6,250,000
1.0
10.9
38.1
50.0
T otal.............................. 13,500,000
100.0
Average
wealth.
Aggregate
wealth.
$263,040 $32,880,000,000
14,180 19,320,000,000
1,639
7,800,000,000
4,800
60,000,000,000
Per
cent.
54.8
32.2
13.0
100.0
The inequalities have been steadily growing worse, and when
a single person’s fortune is estim ated a t a thousand millions
and is gathering in $50,000,000 per annum o f the net proceeds
of the products of the labor of th is country, w hile m illions of
human beings can not lay aside $50 apiece per annum, what
m ust be the inevitable result? It is th is condition, half under
stood, that is developing rapidly a sentim ent o f radical social
ism, discontent, and social unrest.
Moody’s Manual of 1907, page 30, presents a “ General Sum
m a r y ” of corporations offering stocks and bonds for saleMo
the stock exchanges and recorded by him in great detail in
volume of nearly 3,000 pages, as follow s:
Steam railroad division
Public u tilities division ind ustrial division-------M ining d iv is io n -----------
T otal stocks and bonds
— - $1E’ f§§- m
------- ’
°oo
-------
i n I r 2 ’ l ? 4, 000
Page 10, Report (1907) Comptroller of the Currency,
resources national banks----------------------------------------Page 35, Report (1907) Comptroller of the Currency,
resources other banks and trust companies________
’
>900
8, 390 300 , no
’ “ ’
11, i e g ) g j j g j -
10, I 06, 333, 000
---------- -------- 2 > 525 , 173 , 0 0 0
Quoting Professor Smart, of Glasgow:
But when machinery is replacing man and doing the heavy work of
industry, it is tim e to get rid of th at ancient prejudice th a t men m ust
work ten hours a day to keep the world up to the level of the comfort
it has attained. Possibly, if we clear our minds; o f cant, we may see
the reason why we still w ish the laborer to work ten hours a day is
th at we, the comfortable classes, may go on receiving the lion’s share
of the w ealth these machines, iron and human, are turning out.
In addition to th is enormous volume of corporate wealth
which comprises a registered one-third of our national wealth’
So Professor Cairnes, an economist noted for ability and cau there is an unregistered volume o f corporations which are close
corporations which do not sell stock, which are personal cor
tion, in his Leading Principles (ibid., 162), says:
Unequal as is the distribution of w ealth already in the country, the porations, amounting to thousands o f m illions o f dollars.
I respectfully call your attention to the Statistical Abstract
tendency o f industrial progress— on the supposition th at the present
separation between industrial classes is m aintained— is toward an of 1907, Table 244, which sets forth the w ealth of the United
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3283
Wisconsin, in his remarks on Senate bill 3023 a year ago, pointed
out that practically 100 directors, interlocked w ith each other, *
controlled all of the great corporations of transportation, tele
Table ZM, S ta tistic a l A b stra ct, 1907.
Total wealth in United States______________________ $107, 104, 211, 917
graph, telephone, express, and industrials in the United States.
Real property______________________________________
62, 341, 492, 134 He gave their names and the corporations which they controlled
Live stock_________________________________________
4, 073, 791, 736
Farm implements and machinery_,_______________
844, 989, 863 in part.
Manufacturing machinery, todls, etc ________________
3, 297, 754, 180
In the remarks which I had the honor to submit on February
Railroad equipment_______ -x ______________________
11, 244, 752, 000 25, 1908, upon this bill (S. 3923), I pointed out the ability of a
str ee t railway, shipping, w aterworks_______________
4, 840, 546, 909
Agricultural products______________________________
1, 899, 379, 652 few men in New York to create a panic whenever they wanted
Manufactured products____________,________________
7, 409, 291, 668 to, and I pointed out how they could profit by it.
Imported merchandise _____________________________
495, 543, 685
A few men control the management of the banks in New
Mining p ro d u cts__________________________________
326, 851, 517
2, 000, 000, 000 York City, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago, w ith associate
Clothing and personal ornaments________________ —
furniture, ca rria g es_______________________________
5 ,7 5 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 banks throughout the country, and can^ make the stock market
go up or down as they please by the simplest o f all processes,
Total for United S tates_____________________ 107 ,1 0 4 , 211, 917
to w it:
Where do the city laborers under protection come in as joint
BY RESTRICTING CREDITS
heirs of modern prosperity?
when they want the market to go down
W hat part of this wealth created by labor is theirs?
BY EXTENDING CREDITS FREELY
They have no real estate, no lire stock, farm machinery, when they want the market to go up.
manufacturing machinery, railroads, or under any visible classi
The panic of 1893 was an artificial panic, because it w as
fication. The only thing that they can have under this tabula brought about in this manner for the purpose of putting an end
tion is clothing and a little personal property.
to the talk of remonetizing silver, and as^ a political argument,
And yet the products of the labor in our specified manufactur ingeniously and powerfully exerted, it did finally put an end
ing^ industries of 11X15 reached a total of $14,802,147,087, for to it.
o,470,321 wage-earners, whose product was therefore worth
I w as in the banking business myself at that time, and re
$2,708 per capita.
ceived a circular letter from New York pointing out the mis
These people received $2,611,540,532 in wages (Stat. Abst. chievous character of the discussion favoring remonetization of
U. S., 1907, p. 144), or $479 per capita.
silv er ; that it was driving gold abroad. Several letters fol
This $479 each must feed and shelter and clothe and educate lowed along the same line, and, I am informed, and believe, that
and provide leisure and the joyous participation in the common these circulars were sent out at-th e instance of a committee
providences of God for an average of three people, on about $160 representing banks belonging to the New York clearing house;
each per annum, or about an average of $13.33 per month.
that it w as the definite and predetermined policy then and there
There can hardly be much margin of saving under the circum to constrict credits; and that, finally, these banks struck the
stances for sickness, ill health, accident, or loss of employment. crowning blow by “ calling,” in June, 1893, the large volume of
In New York City, with over four m illions of people, less than demand loans then on the street for immediate payment, when
1 in 40 has any real estate.
the usual credit accommodations were already quite cut off by
LESS THAN 100,000 OWN CITT.
these banks and their associate institutions and othei associated
[From the New York Times.]
,
, . ,, _
Lawson Purdy, president of the board of taxes and assessm ents, in a financiers.
When this panic was over the weaker elements of the financial
speech a t the City Planning Municipal Art Exhibition, said that the
value of the taxable property in New York City is now estimated to world by thousands had been compelled to give up their Prop
be about $6,800,000,000. Two-thirds, or 67 per cent, of this property, erties to the financial masters, who had accumulated cash for
he added, is land. Mr. Purdy said that it is estimated that less tha'n the purpose of taking over the property of less farsighted and
100,000 persons own every particle of the land.
operators.
„
..
. . ,
Our wealth increases over $4,500,000,000 every year over and powerful
I pointed out in my remarks February 25, 1908, the astonish
above our expenses. What proportion does labor, the creator of
ing
manner
in
which
these
forces
had
caused
the
stock
market
wealth, retain net out of its own creation?
to go up and down by which the unwary nave been fleeced of
A beggarly part, Mr. President. Our national policy can be
their property during the preceding ten years.
im proved; our national policy should be changed.
The panic of 1907 w as an artificial panics brought about by
We ought not to persist in a policy artfully designed to make conspiracy, in my opinion, of men discussed by I resident Roose
the rich richer and the poor poorer.
velt as “ malefactors of great wealth.”
FALSE STANDARDS OF LIFE.
I think his description was precise and apt, and I think that
P iling up enormous wealth in few hands is setting false stand the Senate ought never to be content until a proper inquiry has
ards of life and making classes whose sympathies are very far been made into the panic of 1907, to determine who the bene
apart.
ficiaries were of that artful, crafty, far-reaching, and terrible
One can not help but be struck w ith the enormous cost of conspiracy, which has thrown millions of men out ox employ
hotel services, for example, in the New York hotels conducted ment and brought tears and grief to the unnumbered women
expressly for the patronage of the rich; $15 to $20 a day for a and children in this land who have suffered the consequence of
bedroom, sitting room, and bath is nothing unusual; $15 for a that financial panic.
dinner for two persons is not regarded as extravagant; and
I was informed with regard to what might be expected to
side by side w ith this w ill be found fam ilies who can not save happen nearly a year before it did happen.
$30 net out of their labor of a year’s time.
The panic of 1907 w as brought about by a prolonged bull
This may seem unimportant; I regard it as a matter of very movement, free extension of credits, maintaining stocks and
great importance, illustrating the grossly unequal distribution bonds at a high figure until in sufficient volume they were loaded
of the proceeds of human labor; a condition which pampers one upon the unwary, to whom money was freely loaned on a proper
class and starves another; a condition which ought not to be en margin, and then began the process of restricting credits, slowly,
couraged by a nation which desires to preserve its liberties.
steadily, firmly, the masters of the market, the high priests of
TIPPING.
monopoly, having accumulated an immense volume of cash and
The whole tipping system which in sections where these differ cash credits, to be used when the market struck bottom. This
ences of wealth are most pronounced is an evidence offering they did, w ith the most magnificent results, making unnumbered
itself on every hand to show that the servants who render millions out of the weaker elements who had been led into the
service are not properly paid, and that the well-to-do class ought trap of obtaining credits.
voluntarily to pay the servants for every little act. This sys
It is true that the panic resulted in paralyzing productive en
tem degrades the servant and puts him in an attitude of a beg ergies of the American people, disturbing credits throughout the
gar—a beggary which the giver of tips encourages in spite of whole world, and throwing millions of men out ot employment
himself. The whole practice which universally prevails in and causing unspeakable suffering to many millions of women
Europe emphasizes the relation of master and servant, of and children. But monopoly had its reward, if the accumulation
master and dependent, in which the servant is to be thankful of money beyond the needs of a human being can be called a re
for gifts, and it is injurious both to the one who gives and the ward ; if a callous heart and deadened sensibilities to the suffer
one who receives and illustrates the false standards of living ings of human kind can be called a reward.
which are being established in this country. Men who serve
I wish to say to the chairman of the Committee on Finance
ought to be properly paid in the first instance and not com that his committee is, in my judgment, honor bound to deter
pelled to be put in the attitude of beggars in order to make a mine who the beneficiaries of that financial panic were and to
living. It lowers the moral tone of the American Republic.
take steps against the possibility of its repetition. There was a
m o n o p o l ie s ’ e v il and d a ngerou s m e t h o d s .
double purpose in this panic. One w as that the very powerful
Mr. President, piling up stupendous wealth in a few hands is financially might double their holdings of property by smash
dangerous to the welfare of the country. The Senator from ing values, accumulating cash and cash credits, and buying
States, which shows clearly where its approximate ownership
may be found, to w it:
3284
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
in the stocks and bonds of weak financiers who could not stand
the storm.
Another purpose w as to discredit Theodore Roosevelt, whose
heart had been moved by a resolute purpose to protect the
people against such sinister forces.
In his message of January 31, 1908, he said:
WHO COMMIT HIDEOUS WRONG.
The attacks by These great corporations on the adm inistration’s ac
tions have been given a wide circulation through the country, in the
newspapers and otherwise, by those w riters and speakers who, con
sciously or unconsciously, act as the representatives of predatory
w ealth— of the w ealth accumulated on a giant scale by all forms of
iniquity, ranging from the oppression of wage-workers to unfair and
unwholesome methods of crushing out competition, and to defrauding
the public by stockjobbing and the m anipulation of securities. Certain
w ealthy men of th is stamp, whose conduct should be abhorrent to every
man or ordinary decent conscience and who commit the hideous wrong
of teaching our young men th at phenomenal business success must or
dinarily be based on dishonesty, have during the la st few months made
it apparent th at they have banded together to work for a reaction.
Their endeavor is to overthrow aud discredit all who honestly adminis
ter the law, to prevent any additional legislation which would check
and restrain them, and to secure, if possible, a freedom from all restraint,
which w ill permit every unscrupulous wrongdoer to do w hat he wishes
unchecked provided he has enough money
The only way to counter
act the movement in which these men are engaged is to make clear
to the public ju st w hat they are seeking to accomplish in the present.
Tbe absurd fluctuations o f stocks controlled by these high
financiers, I set forth a t the time, illustrate the unspeakable
folly of any citizen trusting him self upon a market capable of
such uncontrolled manipulation. MoDte Carlo is perfectly inno
cent by the side of th is gigantic gambling house w ith its won
derfully improved modern machinery for misleading the judg
ment of the ordinary citizen, w ith its secret pitfalls and in
genious traps by which to defraud our people.
The spirit of monopoly—the idea of getting something for
nothing—has done a great harm to the American people. H un
dreds of thousands of people are the beneficiaries o f it and
many m illions are the victim s o f i t Those who are enriched
by it set new standards o f extravagant living, of w asteful ex
penditure, and of false pride and bad example, the im itation of
which has made the American citizen notorious throughout the
whole world.
This bill, Mr. President, is a taproot from which monopoly
partly draws its power, fattens, grows strong, and overshadows
the land like an evil tree killing and impairing the life of those
who stand beneath.
The violent manner in which the monopolists of this country
juggle the stock market subjects it to tremendous changes from
time to time, as shown in the follow ing q u otation s:
These ranges are since 1900, and w ill be found in the New
York Tim es W eekly N ational Quotation Review, page 13, of
October 21, 1907:
High.
American Hide and Leather........................... ......................................
Kanawha and Michigan........................................................................
Peoria and Eastern------------------------------- ----------------------------
315
27
130
36
57
272
62
13
91
30
250
18
48
110
125
560
53
24
334
348
57
76
39
85
76
22
43
86
76
174
97
700
250
13
170
50
106
268
164
166
98
53
160
20
55
Low.
114
4
S3
9
24
142
3
2
20
5
26
3
7
18
55
171
16
4
109
140
11
10
7
8
12
4
9
23
11
99
22
45
150
1
no
5
20
148
15
25
9
6
45
6
8
J une 15,
I call attention to some o f these figures, however: Adams
Express went from 114 to 315, about 300 per cent; the A llis.
Chalmers Company w ent from 4 to 27, over GOO per cent
Amalgamated Copper, one of the giant concerns of this country
from 33 to 130, 400 per cent. And so it goes on through the list
The m onopoly protecting tariff shortens the life of labor and
exposes it to greater m ortality.
Mr. President, in the la st forty years the world has wonder
fu lly improved in medical knowledge. I t has wonderfully jni.
proved in inventive processes, which have led to increased
conveniences of life, which have developed the m ost important
economies of production, manufacture, and distribution.
All of these things have tended to the prolongation of human
life where people could receive the fu ll benefit o f them ; so
much so, that it is probably no excessive estim ate to say that
the average of human life in the well-to-do classes has been
increased by a period of ten years. It has been one o f the
wonderful developments of increasing modern intelligence.
It is a grievous thing, therefore, to observe that notw ith
standing these great benefits, which ought to be a common her
itage of the human race, and notw ithstanding the increasing
longevity of the well-to-do classes, the entire average of ljfe
shown by the m ortality tables has not been improved. The
number of persons who die per thousand is substantially the
same.
Mr. President, I submit the comparative m ortality statistics
of our country and the other civilized nations o f the world.
The m ortality statistics exhibit the remarkable fact that just
in degree as poverty obtains and governments permit monopoly,
without protecting the weaker elem ents from dangerous ex
posure, ju st in that degree the number of deaths from a ll causes
rises in the annual average.
It is a very important matter, and it shows that ju st in de
gree as thoughtful men w rite their law s for the preservation of
human life to that degree is human longevity exten d ed ; to that
degree there is the conservation of the best of all national re
sources—the lives of the children, the lives of the workingmen
and working women of the country.
The follow ing table gives the number of people per thousand
who died in the follow ing countries from 1903 to 1906 (p. 28 of
the M ortality Statistics of the Census Office for 1907) :
Country.
Ceylon.................................................................
R oum ania...-------- -------------------- ----------Spain-------------------------------------------------Austria....................- ........................... ...... ........
Japan___________________ ____________ _
France........- ------- --------------------------------German Empire.................................................
United States--------------------------------------Netherlands........... ...........................................
Norway---------------------------------------------Denmark--------- ----------------------------------United Kingdom----------------------------------Australasia----------------------------------------New Zealand----------------------------------------
903.
25.9
26.1
24.8
25
23.8
22.4
20
19.2
20
16.1
15.6
14.8
14.7
15.8
11.8
10.4
1904.
24.9
24.8
24.4
25.8
23.7
21.1
21.2
19.4
19.6
16.6
15.9
14.3
14.1
16.5
10.8
9.6
1905.
27.7
27.8
25.4
25.9
25
21.9
21.9
19.6
19.8
16.2
15.3
14.8
15
15.5
10.5
9.3
1906.
34.3
24.8
28~2
20~8
19*9
’i«a
14.8
13.7
13.5
15.6
10.6
9.8
There is no table which has ever been read in th is body that
has such vital significance as that table, which shows that if
the people of the United States took the same pains to pre
serve the life o f the Nation that New Zealand has done, we
would save over six to the thou san d; and, measured by our
80,000,000 people, it would mean a saving to this country of
over 500,000 lives annually. Pittsburg is no exception in the ex
posure of human life to bad conditions. I t is merely illustrative.
The policy of New Zealand is expressed in their great motto
“ Better reduce want than increase w e a lth ; ” and when you
reduce want, even if it be at the expense o f increasing wealth
you prolong human life. You make life worthy to be lived
and you raise the standard of men physically, morally, and
spiritually.
Let our national standard be “Men first, then w ea lth .”
New Zealand has abolished monopoly and given a more even
distribution o f the opportunities of life to w illing labor than
any other country in the world, and it offers to the United
States an example of how to care for its people, because the
difference of these vital statistics of an average of 9.9 deaths
per annum out of a thousand and 16.3 per thousand, makes a
difference of 6.4 per thousand, or the vast m ultitude o f 512,000
people who annually die in the United States in excess of the
deaths th at would occur under more favorable conditions of
life. Are they not worth preserving as fully a s we agree on the
conservation of our other national resources?
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
T lie death rate in ou r cities, especially the ind ustrial cities,
seem s to run still high er than the general a v e r a g e ; fo r exam ple,
the annual average num ber o f deaths from all causes, per thou
sand p opulation fo r 1901 to 1905, w as as fo llo w s (id ., pp. 91
and 9 2 ) :
In Massachusetts :
18. 8
Boston____________
Fall River___________________________________________________ 20. 3
L ow ell______________________________________________________ 20. 2
Providence, It. I__________________________________________________ 18. 8
New York City___________________________________________________ 19. 0
Pittsburg, I>a____________________________________________________ 20. 7
Philadelphia_____________________________________________________ 18. 2
Norristown, l*a_____________________________________________________ 24.5
N otw ith standing the fa ct that the cities w ith their op por
tunity o f cooperation in im proved w ater supply, sewerage,
hospital service, and san itary supervision ough t to have better
health than those less fa v o ra b ly situated. T h e heavy death
rate in cities is due to the extrem e high death rate am ong the
very poor, w ho are com pelled to live in insanitary p laces and
ore otherw ise exposed, w h ile the m ore fa v o re d p opulation o f the
cities w ou ld show a better rate than the average.
Table 21.—Death rates from, aU causes per 1,000 population in regis
tration States in 1900.
Connecticut_____________________________________________________16.977
Maine-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. 493
Massachusetts_________________________________________________ 17. 736
Michigan_____________________________________________________ 13. 867
New Hampshire_______________________________________________17. 979
New Jersey___________________________________________________ 17. 378
New Y ork____________________________________________________ 17. 921
Rhode Island_________________________________________________ 19. 078
Vermont_______________________________________________________1 6 . 962
T able 95, A b stract o f the Census, 1900, sh ow s a heavy m or
tality in m an u factu rin g cities and in cities w here negroes live.
F or exam ple, per thousand, from all ca u se s:
Augusta, Me__________________________
26.4
Baltimore, Md___________________________________________________ 21. 0
Biddeford. Me_____________ ___________________________________ 23. 2
Boston, Mass____________________________________________________ 21. 1
Cincinnati, Ohio_____________________ _____ ______________________ 19. 1
Hoboken, N. J
_
___
___
_____ __
21 1
Jersey City, N. jZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z iZ Z __III_IIZZ___ HZ_ZI_Z 20. 7
Eptsburg, p a ___________________________________________________ 20. O
Bfliladelphia, Pa_________________________________________________ 21. 2
Census B u lletin No. 77 gives an interesting accou n t o f 42
°£ the so-called “ d u sty trades," show ing, fo r exam ple, that
° f Polishers w h o d ie between 25 and 34 years. 56 per cent o f
such deaths are due to consum ption. T h e per cent o f like
heaths due to consum ption in each age group is very h ig h ; fo r
exam ple, betw een the ages o f 25 and 34 years, 70 per cen t o f
ho grinders w h o die, d ie o f c o n su m p tio n ; 59 per cent o f the
fo o l m akers, 50 per cent o f the g o ld -le a f m akers, 50 per cent o f
brass w orkers, 56 per cent o f printers, 66 per cent o f com postors, 61 per cen t o f engravers, 52 per cent o f stone w orkers, 50
Per cent o f m arble w orkers. 56 per cent o f glass blow ers, 46 per
ent o f glass cutters, 44 per cent o f plasterers, 49 per cent o f
Paper hangers, 62 per cen t o f lithographers, 6S per cent o f the
hosiery and knitting m ill em ployees, 50 per cent o f spinners, 53
per cent o f w eavers, 50 per cent o f rope m akers, 55 per cent o f
oaoinetm akers, 62 per cent o f w ood turners. 55 per cent o f hatovs, 52 per cent o f silk-m ill em ployees, 5S per cent o f upliolsh ow ing that w orkers in these dusty trades a re very
ble to d ie o f tuberculosis.
bn i 1S
show s th at the exposure o f hum an life to dust and
eni .con(litlous leads to the destru ction o f human life by tuberRiosis in a serious w ay. I think these tables are o f interest,
con
Presi(lent, I deem it m y d u ty to call the attention o f the
tr ''! ry to the fa c t that this death rate stands in startlin g con1901 t0 tho deatl1 ra te o f N ew Zealand, w here the average fo r
p M to 1906 w as less than 10 deaths per thousand. It is equally
m portant, in con sid erin g the reason fo r th e greater security o f
nlo t Ui ^ evv Z ea la hd, to rem em ber that in New Zealand the peoii. take great care to p reven t the destru ction o f hum an life by
P ^ r e m c s o f poverty.
Sennt
y’
P residen t, I w ish to ca ll the attention o f the
p ‘\ e t ° the fa ct that in N ew Zealand great pains are taken to
of ^
the people again st m onopoly, against the appropriation
visit / ^ t l d 'i g in heaven an d on earth, everyth in g visible or incro il6 by uu>u- because they happen to have piled up availa ble
tin i
t *K“ir com m and. In N ew Zealand they believe that
w as m ade fo r the use and benefit o f the livin g genera; „ n’ w ho m ake it d esira ble 'to live in. T h e re fo re they con trol
m onopojy in that great republic. W e have copied them before
m their p olitical processes when w e adopted the greatest o f all
S T io r the co n tro l o f fr a u d in election s by the adoption o f
o L UStrnlian ballot, and we w ill d o w ell to im itate them m
«th er m atters, w h ere they p rotect the living generation against
w f?nu.ncontro,1od an d natural am bition and greed o f man fo r
h e a lth and pow er.
3285
BETTER REDUCE WANT THAN INCREASE WEALTH.
In New Zealand they do not impose a tariff tax artfully
drawn to make the poor poorer and the rich richer, in New
Zealand they do not establish a tariff under the false pretense
of raising revenue, where the legislator openly or secretly in
tends the tariff rate not to raise revenue, but to prevent importa
tion, to prevent competition, and to protect monopoly in the
home market.
THE PURPOSES OF TAXATION.
C onstitutionally, a tax can have no other basis than the raising of a
revenue for public purposes, and whatever governmental exaction has
not this basis is tyrannical and unlawful. A tax on imports, therefore,
the purpose of which is not to raise a revenue, but to discourage and
in directly prohibit some particular import for the benefit of some home
m anufacture, m ay w ell be questioned as being merely colorable, and
therefore not tcarranted by constitutional principles.
(Cooley, Prin.
Con. Law, 57.)
.
..
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the Topeka case, said :
“ To lay with one hand the power of the Government on the property
of the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals
to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less
a robbery because i t is done under the forms of law and is called
‘taxation.’ This is not legislation; it is a decree under legislative
forms.” (20 Wall., 664, in Loan Asso. v. Topeka.)
New Zealand pursues the policy
BETTER REDUCE WANT THAN INCREASE WEALTH
and imposes a 10 per cent inheritance tax on estates of one
hundred thousand and more, and imposes also an income tax.
New Zealand does not hesitate to protect her working units
from excessive house rent, providing concrete houses at a low
rate of interest.
I am not unaware of the fact that this latter suggestion will
furnish occasion to the clamorous advocates of special privileges
to burst into a chorus of denunciation against New Zealand,
that this is socialism. It is true that it is socialistic. But no
wise policy should be condemned by a mere epithet “ socialism,”
for our post-office system and common-school system, and
municipal waterworks, sewers and streets system are “ social
istic.” New Zealand believes that the land upon winch the New
Zealanders live and move and have their being ought not
to be monopolized by the very rich, nor used by them through
the acquirement of titles to dictate terms upon which the New
Zealanders shall be allowed to live.
The S ew Zealanders must be a very foolish people. They
actually believe that the land upon which they ih e should be
controlled in the interest of the living generation of men who
cultivate it and make it beautiful. I understand that this fool
ish doctrine is contrary to the fundamental canons of monopoly.
It violates the fundamental law of continental Europe and
of Great Britain. It would overthrow the idea of the good
old days of William the Conqueror when he^ took charge of
Britain and parceled the lands among his warlike leaders.
These titles have thence come down in the good old way,
and the dukes and princes of England, and of Germany, of
Austria, and of liussia still hold the titles and in measure still
impose their will upon the inhabitants thereof. It is also true
that this special class of landed nobles, who exercised monopoly
of the land, having finally learned, that they could only eat so
much and only wear so much and only occupy a given number
of palaces, were obliged to throw out the younger brothers of
each succeeding family, and, human selfishness having become
satiated in princely and luxurious living, have turned them
selves to some extent to the service of their fellow-men. But
they have had the wisdom and been compelled to limit the ex
tortion which their legal rights made possible.
Indeed, they had a great example in France, which was se n iceable in teaching them not to go too far. It was this monop
oly of land—the Senator from New York [Mr. D epewj
contrary notwithstanding—which caused the French rei
>
sending the land monopolists to the guillotine,
r+hose h
the minute subdivision of the lands of E ranee amon„
tilled the soil and m ade it I' ' ° (i ”; d e r s t o o d In discussing the
Mr. President, one m ight be
individual fo r e x
greed o f m odern times.
1
human life. I do not blam e a
h ibitin g the natural tendency ^ ^
“ d p o w e r ; all o f us have
m an fo r becom ing greedy
tlie j vs w p ich p ersist in shel-
bai Pw islT 'to call attention to w hat is the effect o f m onopoly.
M onopoly Is w orse in E urope than in our country because under
the r u l e in E urope the land was m onopolized m the first p lace
bv im perial power, and the control o f the land w as handed dow n
to dukes princes, and various others, and those people w ho com e
to our shores and are w illin g to subm it to any kind o f treatm ent
do so because they com e from conditions o f m onopoly m ore
severe than those w h ich we have in ou r ow n country.
3286
CONGRESSIONA L KECOBD—SENATE.
J u n e 15
Then Joseph said unto the people, “ Behold I have bought you thi«
It w as the monopoly of land which led to the French revolu day, and your land for P h a ra o h : lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall
tion, notw ithstanding the comments of the Senator from New sow th e land.
“And it shall come to pass in the increase, th at ye shall give th»
York, who attributed it to other reasons. Thomas Jefferson, fifth
part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seea
when minister to France in 1785, pointed out the terrific effect of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and
for food for your little ones.’’
o f land monopoly in that Empire. H e said:
The property of France is absolutely concentrated in a very few
hands, having revenues of from h a lf a m illion of guineas a year down
ward. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some or
them having as many as 200 dom estics, not laboring. They employ also
a great number of m anufacturers and tradesmen, and, lastly, the class
of laboring husbandmen. But, after all, there comes the most numerous
of all the classes; that is, the poor, who can not find work. I asked
m yself what could be the reason th at so many should be permitted to
beg who are w illing to work in a country where there is a very con
siderable proportion o f uncultivated lands? Those lands are undis
tributed only for the sake of game. It should seem, then, that it must
be because of the enormous w ealth of the proprietors, which places them
above attention to the increase of their revenues by perm itting these
lands to be labored.
I have alw ays felt sorry for the French nobility, for the socalled “ flower of France,” and have wondered why it w as they
were incapable of realizing the fatal danger which their greed,
their extravagance, and their frivolity engendered. They played
w ith a powder magazine of human passion which finally ex
ploded.
Our law s should protect the people in the peaceful enjoyment
o f life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and of the fruits of
their own industry. I f the law s fail, there w ill be built up in
this country a powder magazine of human passion that may
some day explode w ith fatal consequences.
A safety valve has been furnished, for possible danger to the land
monopolist and other thence engendered monopolists of conti
nental Europe, by modern transportation, which has permitted
their great surplus o f population to go to other parts of the world
and build up homes by their peaceful labor, where they would
not be subject to princes or potentates or to tyranny in any form,
whether governmental, religious, or plutocratic; and our fore
fathers came to this land to free them selves from this tyranny
and to establish a' government whose fundamental doctrine was
that the precious privileges o f life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness were inalienable. That is to say, Mr. President, the
individual could not deprive him self of them if he w ou ld ; that
he had no right to deprive him self of these things.
It has remained for the representatives of the people in Con
gress to permit the dangers of monopoly to grow up by special
privileges granted by statute, by building up a monopoly breed
ing tariff, by which foreign competition has been cut off and
home competition controlled and commercial m astery of our
people established by the organization of trusts, by secret
agreements, and by gigantic mergers, which embraced in one
corporate body every competitor.
Mr. President, there is no evil to a -free people m ore dangerous
in every tvay than financial and comm ercial monopoly.
When a monopoly is organized strong enough to dictate the
prices of the product of labor, or to dictate the prices o f the
necessaries of life to the laborer and the entire people, there has
also been established a comm ercial m aster on the one side and a
com m ercial slavery on the other. The Standard Oil Company,
which fixes the price of crude oil to the producer and fixes the
price of kerosene and gasoline to the consumer, regardless of
values either to one or the other, exercises a commercial mas
tery that differs in degree, but does not differ in kind, w ith the
m astery which Pharaoh exercised over the Egyptians when he
established a monopoly in corn in Egypt.
Mr. President, under the advice of Joseph, Pharaoh and his
captains stored all the surplus corn of Egypt during seven years
of plenty. They exercised their legal rights. During the seven
years of drought which follow ed they had the richest monopoly
recorded in history.
The price of corn went up; the price of corn went sky-high
under th is monopoly of the home m arket The H oly Bible ad
vises us that, in exchange for enough o f th is monopolized
product—
Joseph gathered up all the money th at w as found In the land
of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they
bought. * * *
And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of
Canaan, all the E gyptians came unto Joseph and said, “ Give us
bread for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth ”
And Joseph said, “ Give your cattle ; and I w ill give you for your
cattle, if money fa il.”
And they brought their cattle unto Joseph, and Joseph gave them
bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle
of the herds, and for the asses.
And the Egyptians then gave up to th is triumphant monop
oly all of their land in exchange for corn for bread.
And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for the
Egyptians sold every man his field because the fam ine prevailed over
them, so the land became Pharaoh’s.
Mr. President, we probably in this day of greater liberty and
greater enlightenment would rise in revolution against the dicta
tion of Pharaoh in this form, but the practice upon which
Pharaoh acted, the principle upon which he established a mo
nopoly in a necessary of life by the exercise of his legal rights
and thereby acquired, by m astery of prices, all of the property
of the Egyptians and made them his commercial servants and
slaves, are in full play in this Republic under the operation of
a thousand varieties of monopolies, dictating prices upon all
of the necessaries of life and gradually absorbing—I may say
Mr. President, rapidly absorbing—all of the property of this
Republic.
Pharaoh and his captains gave the Egyptians four-fifths of
what they produced. The present m asters of monopoly do not
give to labor so large a part o f w hat it produces. I have dem
onstrated by Exhibit 1 the wages paid a s compared to the
value of the gross product, and have demonstrated by those
tables that taking the raw m aterials at the factory and calcu
lating the additional value created directly by labor, it does not
receive one-half of the value it actually creates, much less
four-fifths, which w as the rule established by Pharaoh.
Mr. President, it may seem austere to recall the monopoly 0f
Pharaoh, but I think it very important that the Senate of the
United States should consider and feel itself more actively re
sponsible for the development and care of the interest of the
productive m asses of the Republic. I have no desire to hold
the leaders of the Republican party responsible for the drift 0f
modern times. I shall be content to see them exert themselves
to retain its good features and restrain its bad features.
I am w illing to exculpate them. I w ill be very glad to see
them take advantage of a great opportunity to make themselves
permanently the representatives of the people if they w ill only
give those things to the people which they are in honor bound to
give to enable them to enjoy life, liberty, the pursuit of happp
ness, and the fruits of their own industry, which are now filched
from them by prices 50 per cent higher than the prices of the
world.
WHO IS GETTING ALL THE NET PRODUCTS OP LABOR IN THIS COUNTRY7
Mr. President, it is perfectly obvious to thoughtful men that
the tremendous accumulation of w ealth in a few hands is lead
ing to the rapid monopolization of every natural opportunity.
Nearly all of our national transportation is so controlled. There
is obvious control by monopoly of telegraph, telephone, the ex
press, of lumber, of building material, of coal, of cotton manu
factures and woolen manufactures, of farm machinery, of oil
of iron, of steel and their products; and on the other hand we
have a rather pitiful condition of extreme poverty exhibiting
itself in all of our great cities, side by side w ith this enormous
concentration of wealth.
Mr. President, I believe we have the best people in the w orld;
that even our m asters of monopoly have shown a greater meas
ure o f liberality in their gigantic benefactions to the people
from whom their fortunes have been drawn than any men in
the history of the world. I rejoice in their benevolence, i
know that they are neither hard-hearted nor lacking in gener
ous im pulse; they have simply been follow ing the rules of busi
ness established by a rigorous commercial age, where “ divi
dends ” were emblazoned on every battle flag and “ success
“ financial success ’’—w as the only standard. It is no wonder
that the weak and the poor and the inarticulate mass have
been forgotten in the fierce contest for wealth and power.
We have a wonderful country and a great and magnificent
people. We have a great m ass of the middle classes of people
who are not in penury, have neither riches nor poverty, but
comprise the bulwark o f this Republic, whose patriotism, whose
wisdom, whose penetrating intelligence can be perfectly relied
upon; and the petty larceny of the two m illions of our revenue
by the sugar trust, to which they pleaded guilty in New York
within the last few days, being but a trivial circumstance be
side the universal plundering o f the national pocketbook by
the wholesale fraudulent prices fixed by the monopolies of this
country, our great middle class, conservative and sound, will
soon correct these evils at the ballot box.
I am deeply disappointed that the party in power has appar
ently lost its opportunity to serve the people by removing the
tariff w all sheltering monopoly and by lowering prices in the
United States.
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
MONOPOLY HAS SUBJECTED LABOB TO IRREGULAR EMPLOYMENT.
The panic of 1907 was caused by monopoly and by the danger
ous plutocracy our system has erected in the United States,
as I fully set forth on February 25, 1908. This panic threw
out of employment millions of men, two millions of whom are
out of employment now, according to the recent report of
Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of
Labor, from whose report I quote:
P e r m it m e to c a ll a t te n t io n to t h i s : A t th e b e g in n in g o f D ecem ber,
1 9 0 8 , I s e n t o u t a c irc u la r le tte r to th e e x e c u tiv e officers of a n u m b e r
pf in te r n a tio n a l tr a d e u n io n s o f A m erica a n d g o t fro m th e m a r e p o r t
a s to th e s ta t e o f em p lo y m e n t a n d u n e m p lo y m e n t, a n d fro m th e r e p o r ts
W hich w ere m a d e to m e w ith in fifte e n o r tw e n ty d a y s I cu lled th e fo l
lo w in g i n f o r m a ti o n :
. T h e b la c k s m ith s r e p o rt d u rin g th e p a s t y e a r a b o u t 50 p e r c e n t of
th e tr a d e u n e m p lo y e d ; th o s e em ployed a v e ra g in g a b o u t fo u r d a y s a
w eek.
B o ile r m a k e rs a n d iro n -s h ip b u ild e rs , 30 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
B o o t a n d shoe w o rk ers. 2o p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
B rid g e a n d s tr u c tu r a l- ir o n w o rk e rs, 25 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
C a r p e n te rs a n d jo in e rs , 40 p e r c e n t unem p lo y ed .
W ood c a rv e rs , 30 p e r c e n t unem p lo y ed .
C em en t w o rk e rs , 30 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
C ig a r m a k e rs, 10 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
C o m m ercial te le g ra p h e rs , 15 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
C oopers, 15 p e r c e n t u n em p lo y ed ; tw o -th ird s o f th e em p lo y ed w o rk
in g h a lf tim e.
E le v a to r c o n s tru c to rs , 40 p e r c e n t unem p lo y ed .
fcteam a n d lio t-w a te r fitte rs , em p lo y m e n t in th e W e st f a i r ; In th e
fc a st fu lly 40 p e r c e n t u n em ployed a n d w o rk in g a b o u t one h u n d re d a n d
e ig h ty d a y s a y e a r.
F r e ig h t h a n d le rs , a b o u t 30 p e r c e n t u n em p lo y ed .
G la s s -b o ttle blow ers, a b o u t 20 p e r c e n t u n em p lo y ed . O n a c c o u n t o f
c o n d itio n s o f th e tra d e , no w o rk is p erfo rm e d d u r in g J u ly o r A u g u st.
J* in d o w -g la ss b lo w ers, 20 p e r c e n t unem ployed.
G r a n ite c u tte r s , a b o u t 15 p e r c e n t unem p lo y ed .
H a tte r s , m en w o rk in g a b o u t th r e e -fo u rth s tim e.
H o d c a rr ie r s a n d b u ild in g la b o re rs, 00 p e r c e n t unem ployed.
H o te l a n d r e s t a u r a n t em ployees, 30 p e r c e n t unem p lo y ed .
M a c h in is ts , 20 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
R a ilw a y m n in ten n n c e-o f-w a y em ployees, 25 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
Butcher workmen, 40 p e r cent unemployed.
C oat m in e rs , w o rk a b o u t tw o h u n d re d d a y s d u r in g th e yea r.
i a i n t e r s a n d d e c o ra to rs , 70 p e r c e n t unem p lo y ed .
P a tt e r n m a k e rs, 30 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
3287
The American workman has been subjected to foreign pauper
com petition; he has been refused the right to organize for his
own protection.
H e has been denied his political liberty.
H e has been compelled to march in political parades against
his will.
He has been compelled to vote against his conscience under
the threat of being discharged or denied the opportunity of
working for his living.
THE
D EFENSE
OF
THESE
SC H ED U LES
UNSOUN D.
Mr. President, the chairman of the Committee on Finance, on
June 4, made the only defense which has been offered of these
high schedules, and in discussing the matter he said:
In general, it may be stated that the wages of textile operatives in
America are double those of England, France* and Germany. A very
exhaustive inquiry has recently been made into the subject of wages by
the British Board of Trade, which shows that in G ^m any the wages of
cotton weavers run from lGs. 6d. to 19s. 6d., or from .$4.1^, to $4.87 per
week * th at in France the wages run from lbs. 10a. to U s . ~d., or from
$ 4 .2 0 to $4.79 per week; that in Great Britain the wages run &-om 16s.
to 24s. lid ., or from $4 to $6.22 per week
For the United States the Bureau of Labor, in Bulletin Iso. 77, July,
1908, shows that the average wages of all cotton weavers for the year
1907 was S9 74
In addition, I may state that in many of the fine
yarn mills of New England making high-priced fancy fabrics tbe weavers
Ca^tony°^f?the fabrics That' wili be dutiable under these provisions are
valuedyat a dollar a pound. The cost of the cotton is 20 cents a pound
at the outside leaving 80 cents a pound for cost of labor in various
forms in th is ’countr>? Suppose that th a t labor
twtee as much
w ilf no” equalize PtheCcon<5ti(^s°onmtheseS various high-priced goods be!
tWH nthta
we were to submit to the Senate rates which ^
protectFve and adequate, in view of the difference
in the cost of production, we could not make
^
fixed in these specific rates which we have asked the Senate to adopt.
The chairman takes the wages of the cotton weavers of Ger
many, France, and Great Britain for 190o, reported by the
British Board of Trade to Parliament, just after the panic,
and compares these wages with the weavers m the United
1 l a y e r s a n d r a m m e r m e n Of; n e r c e n t l i n e
States for 1907, and withholds the statement made in the
W V " ■>-— ------ -------- v— — ,
t'—*
unemployed.
report from which he quotes that the wages of ribbon weavers
a le la y e rs , “ s ta t e o f e m p lo y m e n t v ery poor.
\
at St. Etienne, France, was twice as great in 190b as in lJOo
l i n - p la t e w o rk e rs , 40 p e r c e n t unem p lo y ed ,
to b a c c o w o rk e rs, w o rk in g on tw o -th ird s tim e,
and 50 per cent higher in 1907 than in LOoir o n m o ld ers, 70 p e r c e n t u n em ployed.
The chairman does not point out that the spinners, both
I am s u re i t Is n o t a n e x a g g e ra tio n to s a y t h a t th e re a re n o w In o u r
c o u n try , a n d h a v e been w ith li ttl e v a r ia tio n sin c e O cto b er, 1907, n e a rly male and female, in the United States, by t_ .
-.0 0 0 ,0 0 0 of w a g e -e a rn e rs u n em ployed.
were paid less wages in the cotton industry in the United
secretary Straus. Do you mean by th at th at before th at period those
States than they were in Germany or Fra >ce. r lie male
-.000,000 were employed?
spinners received $4.12 a week in the United States, $.>.91 in
M '1. G o m p e h b . I do, sir.
sec re ta ry S traus . Are th e re n o t alw ays some u n em p lo y ed ?
France, and $6.57 in Germany, and thff spinners m the woolen
M r. G o m p e r s . I n som e tra d e s , som e ca llin g s, a n d s easo n s, y es, s i r ;
o u t u p to O cto b e r, 1907, a n d f o r a few y e a rs j u s t p r io r th e re to , i t w a s industries were paid $6.52 in the United States $6.22 to $6.81
, P r a c tic a l f a c t t h a t a n y m a n w h o co u ld w o rk co u ld find w o rk to do. I in France, and $7.20 to $7.79 in Germany. The foreign weavers
r e te r to th e c o n d itio n n o w o f th e m en w ho w a n t to w o rk a n d w h o c a n were paid less than our weavers and the foreign spinners
« n a no w o rk to do.
i t is p ro b a b ly one o f th e g r e a t e s t tr ib u te s t h a t c a n b e p a id to a ll o u r were paid more than our spinners.^ and the chairman of the
Committee on Finance withholds this important fact.
It is impossible to follow a leadership that is either careless
lif
______ _ „ _____ _
_
*ue a n d p ro p e rty h a v e been s e c u re a n d p u b lic o rd e r h a s been m a in or inaccurate in making statements for the guidance of the
ta in e d ; a n d I k n o w o f no fo rc e in a ll o u r c o u n try so p o te n t a s a c o n Senate.
The chairman has withheld^ information from this
s e r v a to r o f th e p u b lic p e a c e a s th e m u c h -ab u sed a n d m a lig n e d la b o r body, and the quotations he offers, being a partial truth, are
^ tg a n iz a tio n s . I n th i s m o rn in g ’s p a p e rs w e re a d o f a d e m o n s tra tio n
ox th e u n em p lo y ed in B e rlin y e s te rd a y , w h e re th e s a b e rs of th e so ld ie ry wholly untrustworthy and misleading.
w ere d r a w n to d is p e rs e h u n g ry cro w d s. I t is s e t f o r th in th e cableMr. President, this is the only defense that has been made,
F 'i 'n s t h a t th e u n em p lo y ed th e r e p ro p o se d s o c ia lis tic rem ed ies fo r re- and In effect it amounts to this, that a pound of fabric of cotton
, 1 do n o t kn o w o f w h a t th o s e re m e d ie s o r p ro p o s itio n s f o r re lie f
costs
20 cents a pound for the cotton and 80 cents a pound o
n?n 2 ?.te d. I ta k e i t t h a t a n y p ro p o s itio n co m in g fro m th e p o o r cro w d
r» ,ii ° 'v s w ho w a n t w o rk o r re lie f w o u ld be re g a rd e d a s e x tre m e ly the cost of labor.
.
.
i
G u u cal. B u t th e A m e ric a n w o rk m en a s k fo r no re lie f t h a t c a n a t a ll
The chairman proves too much; he leaves nothing foi c 1 •
w c o n s tru e d a s s o c ia lis tic . T h e re lie f w h ic h w e nsk fo r th e m en
>
w om en o f o u r c o u n try w ho h a v e been w a lk in g th e s tr e e ts in Idle- The statement is obviously false. He leaves nothing f o r <P
•
jess f o r e ig h te e n m o n th s w e nsk u p o n h ig h p a tr io tic , p ra c tic a l, a n d for the enormous dividends paid by the cotton mills o
u u m a n e g ro u n d s , a n d f o r good econom ic re a s o n s . I k n o w , o f co u rse,
He is flatly contradicted by the census, vvllieh show
t q£
J-uat wo a re o fte n m e t, w h en th e s e m a tte r s a r e p re s e n te d , w ith th e s ta t e
m e n t t h a t th e y a r e p a te r n a lis tic , a n d t h a t o u r fo rm o f g o v e rn m e n t does total labor cost in the entire textile industry is 19. I
* , t a d m it o f th e (J o v e rn m e n t u n d e r ta k in g p ro je c ts t h a t w o u ld sm ac k the gross value of the product.
fh„ PPns,ls re.
o f P;l t e rn a lis m . Y et in th e g r e a t c a la m ity w h ic h o v e rto o k th e peo p le
He is flatly contradicted in his contention by t
I ta ly q u ite r e c e n tly th e G o v e rn m e n t o f o u r c o u n try g e n e ro u s ly a n d
ports as to every schedule.
.. „ Wright’s report on relaH e is flatly con tra dicted by C arroll L». vvrig
hno i
in tn e tr in d iv id u a l c a p a c ity . « o » u r u u .
c iu ia w n
bee n in d u lg e d in. O n th e c o n tr a r y , th e a p p r o p r ia tio n o f th i s v a s t
thJP o f m oney w a s looked u p o n a s a d u ty w h ic h in com m on h u m a n ity
f o J L p,e? p le
o u r c o u n try ow ed to a s tric k e n people. I t is o n ly rei , ™ ? to to il lu s tr a t e t h e th o u g h t t h a t th e lin g e rin g h u n g e r a n d m ise ry
t i r o i J 0, th e u n e m p lo y m e n t o f o u r people, b ro u g h t a b o u t by fo rc e s enM reiy beyond th e ir c o n tro l, sh o u ld rece iv e c o n s id e ra tio n a t th e h a n d s o f
g o v e rn m e n t, b o th n a tio n a l a n d s ta te .
TUE monopoly pr o h ib it iv e t a r if f nA s e x p o s e d Am e r ic a n labor to
five labor cost in 446 i o d i y l d a u l f cotton mi]ls for lf)0o
J S S H g J "?
JH3K55 ss-ss
Total cost
------------------------------" _____________$116, 108’, 879
Material c o s t------------------- ------- “ “" I I I ______________ $86, GS9, 752
tyranny.
Mr. President, the monopolies established under tbe prohibi
A nnroxim ately twice ns m uch as tbe total wages paid the
tive tariff have almost entirely destroyed tbe organizations of American workmen, thus sheltering the manufacturer in m o
labor among (heir employees and have driven out in laige meas- nopoly bv excluding foreign goods.
Bve the liberty-loving Americans and have introduced in their
T he chairm an o f tbe Com m ittee on Finance, in the fa ce o f
Place foreigners who know but little of liberty—Slovaks, Bul these census reports, rises in his place as an expert an d tells
garians, Hungarians, Poles, Greeks, Italians.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
3288
th is Senate that the labor cost of these m anufactures is SO
per cent, when the truth is 26 per cent, and he justifies the cot
ton schedules upon th is gross and indefensible error.
Granting that foreign goods have no labor cost whatever,
26 per cent is the maximum schedule to protect the American
workmen; 26 per cent is the maximum average rate required
if the Republican platform is to be carried out of providing the
difference in the cost of production a t home and abroad.
I f the labor cost abroad is one-half the labor cost in the
United States, the rate required to prevent the foreign manu
facturer from having the advantage in cheaper labor would be
26 per cent, the American cost, less 13 per cent, the European
cost, or a net rate of 13 per cent.
The difference in the labor cost at home and abroad would
therefore be 13 per cent and not 47 per cent, as the schedule is
written.
Mr. President, the gross error, to use the mildest terms possi
ble, of the Committee on Finance and the advocates of a pro
J une 15,
hibitive tariff runs in like manner through other schedules
the proof of which I submit. Taking the table o f the com
m ittee itse lf in print No. 3 of April 12, 1909, page 68, I place
side by side w ith the proposed ad valorem rate the total per
centage of labor cost to the value o f the product, the proof of
which w ill be found in Exhibit 1, taken from the census re
ports, and in the volumes on manufactures, of census, 1900
and is verified by the figures of the Committee on Finance giv
ing wages and the value of products in columns 8 and 9.
I ask attention to the recapitulation compiled by the Commit
tee on Finance April 12, 1909, and ask permission to print that
table w ith an interlineation which I have placed in it showing
from the figures submitted by the chairman of the Committee
on Finance in that table, w hat is the percentage of w ages to
value of product as shown in 1904.
The PR ESID IN G OFFICER. Is there objection to the re
quest of the Senator from Oklahoma? The Chair hears none.
The m atter referred to is as follow s:
E stim a ted revenues.
R E C A PIT U L A T IO N .
[Compiled by Committee on Finance, April 12, 1909.
The ad valorems are based on the dutiable values.]
Revenue under—
Schedules.
Value of mer
chandise (duti
able and free).
Present law . Proposed bill
(H. R. 1438).
(act of 1897).
A—Chemicals, oils, and paints________
B—Earths, earthenware, and glassware
C—Metals, and manufactures of
D—Wood, and manufactures of
E—Sugar, molasses, and manufactures nf
E—Tobacco, and manufactures of
G—Agricultural products and provisions
H—Spirits, wines, and other beverages
I—Cotton manufactures____
J—F la x , hemp, and jute, and manufactures of
K—Wool, and manufactures of
L—Silks and silk g o o d s ________
M—Pulp papers and books.- __
N —Sundries.............................................
$42,067,649.85
31,306,008.97
08,016,829.55
24,493,810.90
92,784,081.69
29,959,081.79
63,925,575.39
23,083,420.03
31,869,814.07
114,172,202.94
62,818,797.81
38,816,839.20
20,005,025.62
135,821,484.06
Total from customs_____
779,140,621.87
T otal luxuries, articles of voluntary use, dutiTotal necessaries, dutiable___________
Pres
ent.
$11,187,405.69
15,350,019.67
21,812,195.72
3,705,024.34
60.338.523.31
26,125,037.41
19,181,915.96
16,318,120.14
14,291,026.65
49.900.580.31
36,554,815.89
20,313,706.39
4,136,029.42
29,898,513.49
$11,754,112.83
15,247,487.70
21,523,669.22
2,723,058.08
59,635,940.54
26,113,185.29
20,594,283.57
20,518,168.77
15,023,742.16
50,353,163.25
36,554,815.89
23,581,996.60
4,042,076.14
31,307,603.27
Per ct.
27.62
49.03
32.44
15.12
65.03
87.20
30.16
70.69
44.84
43.67
58.19 •
52.33
20.67
22.50
329,110,914.39
338,973,303.34
------
___
9,862,388.95
149,837,286.47
179,273,627.92
160,454,103.74
178,519,199.60
—
Net increase................................................
_____________
■
Volume
IX, Census of manufactures, 1905 “ Per
centage
Census
(calendar year 1904).
of
1900A
labor
cost to
value
Per
of
centage
prod
of
Value of prod ucts by
ucts, including wages
Pro labor
Wages.
custom work
and
posed. cost to
value
and repairing. value,
of
as
prod
shown,
uct.
1904A
Equivalent
ad valorems.
Per c t.
28.20
48.70
31.65
11.21
65.30
87.18
32.28
8S.89
47.14
44.07
58.19
60.76
21.88
23.06
8
37.1
12.7
18.9
5.7
8.9
26.0
13.3
19.7
22.6
16.2
19.9
6$44,258,256
154,652,719
652.109.633
378,461,021
23,536,189
62,640,303
100,839,004
43,924,676
217,955,322
27,223,574
135,069,003
26,767,943
123.903.633
<*340,596,182
12,331,938,518
“$572,848,476
420,944,040
3,130,253,195
1,393,489,978
413,333,428
331,117,681
2,194,833,891
474,487,379
1,014,094,237
185,094,092
767,210,990
133,288,072
548,957,239
“1,954,228,027
7.5
36.7
20.8
27.1
5.6
18.9
4.5
9.2
21.4
14.6
17.6
20.0
22.5
18.3
"13,534,180,743
====,
_
= ====
289,411,904.28
489,728,717.59
T otal entries for consumption, dutiable and free. "l,415,402,284.78
1,125,990,380.50
338,945,001.07
178,519,199.60
52.48
36.77
—
55.47
36.69
|---- = = »
23.95
15.85
“ Industries grouped to conform as nearly as possible w ith the articles enumerated in the respective schedules of the tariff law. Indus
tries w ith products named in tw o or more schedules are credited to the schedule which includes the major product. The value of products
for each group is the sum of all products of all industries in the group, and hence includes a large amount of duplication due to the product
of one 1
m fl dS6b e *$ f 0/796*,143*;&a dd i t io n ° r o n e o n s .
“ Should b e | 2 7 3 9 5 9 3 2 0 ( s e e p a g e 6 7 ) .
Should be 8 7 6 7 ,4 0 1 ,4 1 7 : addition erroneous.
“ Should be $ l,4 9 o ,686.437 (see page 6 7 ).
ft Percentage of wages to value of product calculated and inserted by R. L. O w e n .
c
r Should b e $ 2 ,2 7 7 ,8 3 8 ,5 4 3 .
"Should be $13,270,192,088.
S C H E D U L E A— C H E M IC A L S , E T C .
S C H E D U L E D---- WOOD, ETC .
Mr. OWEN. This table shows that the percentage of labor to
the value of the product in Schedule A, for example, by the very
figures given by the Finance Committee itself, is only 7.5 per
cent, w hile the proposed schedule is 28 per cent—four tim es as
high as the entire labor cost involved in the product.
In Schedule D the total labor cost is 27 per cent, and the
difference in labor cost in this country and abroad would be
13J per cent, not counting freight, which would be as much more
in favor o f th is heavy m a terial; and here the proposed rate is
11 per cent, and this schedule ought to be absolutely free in
order to protect our forest and conserve our natural resources
otherwise, as well as supply our people w ith cheap building ma
terial and our publishers w ith cheap paper.
S C H E D U L E B---- G LA SS W A R E , E T C .
In like manner in Schedule B the total labor cost is 36 per
cent. The total labor cost in Europe, if it were h alf as muelp,
would leave the net difference in labor cost only 18 per cent,
w hile the proposed tariff is 48 per cent for Schedule B.
S C H E D U L E C— M E T A L S , E T C .
S C H E D U L E E — SUGAR, ETC .
In Schedule E, sugar, and so forth, the labor cost is 5.6 per
c e n t; the difference in labor cost would be less than 3 per cent
which would be more than offset by freight, and here the pro
posed duty is 65 per cent, giving a complete monopoly to the
sugar trust, which takes nearly all the profit, leaving a small
fraction of the profit to the sugar planter.
In like manner Schedule C exhibits a total labor cost of 20
per cent. The difference in this labor cost and th e European
labor cost, accepting the statement of the chairman of the Com
m ittee on Finance that the labor cost in Europe is only h alf as
S C H E D U L E F — TOBACCO, E T C .
much, would be 10 per cent, and the difference in labor cost for
which the protection m ight be required would not exceed 10
The total percentage of labor cost in tobacco manufactures is
per cent, but the proposed rate is 31 per cent—three tim es as 18.9 per cent. The difference in this country and abroad, tak
high as it ought to be for protective purposes.
ing the word of the chairman of the Committee on Finance
1909
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE.
would be approximately
per c en t; the ad valorem rate of the
Senate bill is 87 per cent.
SC H E D U L E G---- AGRICULTURAL, ETC .
Here the labor cost is 4.5 per cent; the difference in labor
cost could not possibly equal the freight, and these products
might as well be free, with some very minor exceptions, even
from a standpoint of absolute protection.
But instead of corresponding with the rate required to pro
tect, the rate is put at 32 per cent, which is perfectly silly, and
should not deceive the most stupid man that ever plowed a fur
row. For example, the tariff on corn is 15 cents a bushel (par.
227), and the total amount imported in 1907 was 9,000 bushels,
and the amount raised was 2,595,320,000 bushels.
And the farmers of the country are flattered with 15 cents a
bushel tax to keep the pauper labor of Europe from running
them out of their cornfields. The American farmer who does
not see the hypocrisy of this schedule and the profound con
tempt which it exhibits for his intelligence is assuredly in
capable of reason.
S C H E D U L E I ----COTTON M ANU FAC TUR ES.
The labor cost in cotton manufactures, according to the fig
ures of the chairman of the Committee on Finance, is 21.4 per
cent. The difference in the labor cost in the United States and
abroad would be between 10 and 11 per cent. The schedule is
put at 47 per cent.
SC H E D U L E J — F L A X , ETC .
In like manner the difference in the cost of labor in the pro
duction of flax, hemp, and jute goods is 7 per cent. The sched
ule is 44 per cent.
3289
The Senator from Montana, another one of the able de
fendants of this totally indefensible bill, with its monopoly-pro
tecting schedules, thought it a sufficient answer to suggest that
the Senator from Oklahoma could not expect to be furnished
with intelligence.
Mr. President, I invite the defenders of this bill to put upon
the face of the Congressional R ecord an answer to these tables
which I have submitted, showing the relative labor cost of our
manufactures and the gross disparity of the schedules they
submit in comparison with the lower rates which would prop
erly measure the difference in the cost of production at home
and abroad.
The proponents of these schedules, in my opinion, can not an
swer my objections without putting themselves to utter confu
sion, if they answer in a spirit of perfect moral and intellectual
integrity and frankness, because it contains a multitude of items
which are practically prohibitive, which produce no revenue
worth mentioning, and has resulted necessarily in the exclusion
of foreign competition, followed by combinations in restraint of
trade and the establishment of monopoly prices—charging the
people too much for what they buy from monopoly and paying
them too little for what they sell to monopoly. This is why the
Republican organization pledged itself to revise the tariff and
made the people believe it would be a downward revision.
I give a table of examples of these prohibitive duties, to
gether with the paragraph of the bill, duty, the revenue, and
the table from which the information is drawn.
These are but a few of the items which might be multiplied
indefinitely.
E
x h ib it
14.
SC H E D U L E K ---- W OOL, ETC .
It should be remembered that in products of wholesale inter
national use our imports may be prevented by a small tax where
it makes the imports unprofitable, so that the prohibitive rates
which average just high enough to prevent competition, as shown
SC H E D U L E L ----S IL K , ETC.
by the table below, serve as a great check to international
Silk and silk goods: The difference in labor cost of produc commerce and lower the amount of revenue which we ought
tion is 10 per cent, but the proposed tariff is 60 per cent, so as to receive under a system of liberal imports and exports.
to insure a monopoly.
The trivial reductions claimed to have been made by the
S C H E D U L E M----P A PE R , ETC.
Senate bill as amended are of no consequence, because the
Pulp, paper, and books: In this schedule the difference in the rates lowered were so far above the prohibitive point, that lower
labor cost of production at home and abroad is between 11 and ing the rates leaves them still prohibitive and reminds me of
12 per cent. The tariff schedule is 21 per cent.
the quotation of my colleague from Macbeth:
The difference in the cost of production measured by labor in
this country and abroad is about 8 per cent. The tariff is 58
per cent.
Then be these juggling fiends no more believed,
Who palter with us in a double sense,
Who keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope.
S C H E D U L E N---- SU N D R IE S .
And, finally, in sundries the difference of labor cost in this
country and abroad is 9 per cent, while the Committee on
Finance imposed an equivalent ad valorem o f 23 per cent.
I challenge the chairman of the Committee on Finance to
answer this exhibit, and invite him to use all of his experts,
and to put on the pages of the Congressional R ecord his an
swer, where it may be critically examined by the scholars of the
country.
. I charge him before the country and before the eyes of civilmed mankind with writing these schedules, under the pretense
of protecting the American workingman, far above the total
cost of the labor in the gross product, which would not be justi
fied even if the percentage of labor cost in similar articles
abroad was absolutely nothing. But granted that the labor
cost abroad is one-half what it is in the United States, I put in
this table the maximum average rate, thus measuring the differ
ence in the cost of production at home and abroad, and call the
attention of the country to it.
The defense of these monopoly protecting schedules has been
as remarkable as the schedules themselves. To my inquiry as
to why the rates were not adjusted to the difference in the cost
of production at home and abroad, the first defense w as that
° f the Senator from New Hampshire, that the inquiry as to
"'flat was the difference in the cost of production at home and
abroad was absurd.
Mr. President, I have demonstrated that the answer of the
Senator fronj New Hampshire is itself absurd, if it were offered
ln I»erfect good faith, as I am sure it was.
. Flie next answer would appear to come from the Senator from
Massachusetts, who, having explained a question I did not ask,
”aw fit to suggest he could not give the Senator from Oklahoma
ihe understanding with which to comprehend, and when I suc
ceeded in enabling him to understand my question he confessed
that he was not prepared to answer it.
The Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the Com
mittee on Finance, whose genuine good temper at least I always
admire, suggested as a proper answer to my inquiry that I was
“ new to the Senate,” a polite way of suggesting a lack of learn
ing and understanding which is commonly practiced by the
managers of the committee on committees when they can not
answer intelligently an embarrassing question.
TAXING
RAW M A TER IA LS
IN JU R IO U S TO AM ERICAN
NATIONAL COMMERCE.
M ANU FACTURERS
AND
Mr. President, when we tax by the tariff the materials needed
by our manufacturers, whether such materials are raw mate
rials or partly in the process of manufacture, we put our
American manufacturers at a serious disadvantage in competing
with foreign manufacturers in the markets of the United States
and obstruct our own commercial expansion.
Foreign countries provide their manufacturers in large de
gree with free raw material, and therefore with cheaper mate
rials needed for manufacture. Foreign manufacturers have,
therefore, this advantage over our manufacturers in competing
for the markets. Taxing raw materials used by our manufac
turers will, for this reason, lim it our foreign exports of manu
factured goods. This means limiting the production of Ameri
can'factories. This means restricting the number of our work
men, lessening the demand for their labor, lowering their
w ages; and, what is more, means also a smaller output and a
consequent greater cost to the consumer (over and above the
increased cost imposed by higher raw materials), for the reason
that the greater the output the more economic the production.
Cheaper material means a greater foreign market for Amer
ican productions; it means increased demand for American
labor; it means higher wages for American labor; and it means
cheaper prices for American consumers, always believing, as I
believe, that the artificial prices now fixed by monopoly w ill be
American manufacturers are at a furthei disadvantage be
cause they sell to foreigners the goods needed in more advanced
manufactures cheaper than they do to each other w ith in our
oum borders. Because of this, millions of capital created by
American labor is going abroad to get the advantage of these
cheaper prices and to employ, not American workmen, but for
eign workmen. (See North's report.)
ANY O BSTRU CTION TO COM M ERCE L IM IT S T H E O P P O R T U N IT IE S FOR
L E G ITIM A TE EM PLO Y M EN T OF BOTH C A PITA L AND LABOR.
THE
Mr. President, it is perfectly obvious, that having provided
a tariff high enough to equal “ the difference in the cost of
production at home and abroad,” so as to put our manufacturers
3290
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
on a perfect level w ith the m anufacturers o f foreign lands in
the cost of production, that any further tax upon our imports or
our exports, or upon their imports or exports is merely a bar
rier to a free interchange o f commerce, lim iting both our com
merce and their commerce.
There is a very important factor in commerce separate and
apart from the question of equality of cost. We import woolen
goods, cotton goods, silk goods, and we export goods of the
same m aterial to the very countries from which w e import such
goods. The factor entering into th is proposition is not one of
cold economy alone, for it obviously would be more economical
to buy our woolen goods in our own country and save the d if
ference of freight and the sam e thing would be true for the
Europeans—that it would be better for them to keep their goods
at home from a standpoint purely of economy.
B ut the question of economy is not the only factor controlling
or guiding exports and imports. I t is a question of taste and
o f personal fancy that causes Am ericans to buy French, Scotch,
or English goods, and w hich causes the Scotch, English, and
French to buy American goods. W e enlarge their markets by
buying their stuff. They enlarge our m arkets by buying our
stuff. W e increase the demand for their labor; they increase
the demand for our lab or; and we export no more than we import,
for the volume of our exports is determined by the volume of our
imports (using these term s to cover credits and expenditures).
V O LU M E O P E X P O R T S C O N TR O LLED BY V O LU M E O F IM P O R T S .
This question can be reduced to a mathematical demonstra
tion, properly interpreted, i t is only necessary to take the
unit o f the export or of the import to determine this question.
When the American exports $100,000 worth of goods in any
form, whether in cotton bales or in cotton cloth, he receives
from his foreign customer a hundred thousand dollars in money,
or credit, which he may convert at his w ill into cash or into
goods, and h is export w ill be balanced w ith an import or its
m ercantile equivalent in cash, in credit, or expenditure abroad,
or w ith work performed, as in carrying freights, and so forth.
A vast m ultitude of such transactions do not alter th is sub
stan tial truth. It merely enlarges and emphasizes it, and it
may be taken as a sound commercial maxim that our exports
Ere balanced by our imports and our imports are balanced by
our exports, and when w e obstruct our imports w e obstruct our
exports, and thereby dim inish the world’s demand for the goods
o f our m anufacturers; w e thereby dim inish the world’s demand
for the products of American labor; we thereby dim inish the
demand for American labor; w e thereby diminish the employ
ment of American labor and lower the wages o f American labor.
B ALANCE O F TRADE.
[Giffen Essays in Finance, 161.]
Tables showing the balance of trade are apt to m islead men.
For example, our statistics w ill exhibit in one column our im
ports, in another column our exports, and theJbalance is called
the “ balance of trade.” I f w e have exports more than we have
imports in these tables the balance of trade is said to be in our
favor.
This conclusion of the balance being in our favor is unm iti
gated nonsense. Whenever we ship goods from the United
States we get w hat our citizens regard as the equivalent, in
cash, credits, or other property.
He who attem pts to draw any conclusion w hatever as to a nation’s
w ealth or poverty from the mere fact of a favorable or unfavorable
balance of trade has not grasped the first fundam ental principle of
political economy. (R. T. Ely, Problems of To-day, p. 28.)
The plain truth is our statistics, showing merely “ exports ”
and “ im ports,” do not and can not take into account our
credits abroad or the credits of foreigners in the United States.
They do not and they can not take into account the payment by
the U nited States of exceeding $100,000,000 annually for ocean
going freight and passengers carried exclusively in foreign bot
toms. These tables can not take into account expenditures of
citizens of the U nited States abroad, which probably exceed
$100,000,000 per annum.
,
These tables do not take into account m illions of dol
shipped abroad by foreigners working in the United States.
These tables do not take into account numerous foreign in
vestm ents made by citizens of the United States in foreign
lands and by foreigners in our land.
These tables do not take into account even the transfer of
great estates from the United States abroad by international
marriages.
The plain truth, which can not be disputed w ithout stultifi
cation, is this, that for every export we receive its equivalent
in cash or credit, and for every import we pay in cash or credit.
The available gold in the world, which is the basis of w hat we
call “ cash,” is a comparatively sm all amount. The total gold
in the United States amounted to one thousand five hundred
J une 15,
and ninety-three m illions December 31, 1906. (S tatistical Ab
stract of the United States, 1907, pp. 742.)
The annual production of gold in the world amounted to four
hundred m illions in 1906. Germany had over a thousand mil
lions in gold, and France about a thousand m illions in gold, and
the B ritish Empire about a thousand m illions in gold in 1906,
and all of the gold money on earth combined did not exceed
seven billions.
No thoughtful man w ill pretend that we can pursue a policy
by which our exports would be paid in gold and not paid in the
goods and credits and properties of foreign countries. It can
therefore be taken as true th a t our exports arc paid for by im
ports, and that w hen w e lim it our im ports w e lim it our exports
and 7>ur national commerce under a law as fixed as the law of
gravitation,
Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire made a
single defense w ith regard to these schedules which I desire
to answer, and it is the only defense, outside of that of the
chairman, so far as I have observed in the R ecord , that I re
gard as meeting the m atter in any degree, and that is the state
ment, in effect, that by lowering these schedules w e would in
vite into this country the imports of other countries, which
would throw out of employment our own laborers.
This theory, Mr. President, is not sustained by the theory
of economic teaching which shows that inevitably exports are
alw ays paid for by imports and imports are paid for by ex
ports. I f w e exam ine into the individual transactions of which
the aggregate is composed, w e w ill observe that when any
American ships abroad any export, whether it be cotton or
cotton goods of any kind, he is im m ediately paid in cash or
cash credits or its equivalent, and therefore there comes back
to the United States the immediate equivalent of that which
the American exports. That individual export is instantly
balanced. Since the whole m ust be composed of its several
parts, it follow s that exports are paid for by imports and im
ports are paid for by exports, and when w e reduce th e tariff
and invite into our country foreign exports in effect we stim u
late American industries; we enlarge the productive power
o f the American fa c to r y ; we increase the demand for labor
and the employment of capital; and w e put ourselves in the
attitude of shipping abroad more things than w e now ship and
enlarging both our exports and imports in like volume. I think
the reason why our imports and our exports compare so un
favorably w ith the other nations of the earth is largely because
w e have follow ed the Chinese method of excluding, in large
measure, th e products o f other lands.
I w ish to call attention to our status as to imports and ex
ports per capita.
C O M PA R ISO N O F T H E C O M M ER C E O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S AND O TH E R
C O U N T R IE S .
W e plume ourselves on our tremendous commerce in exports
and imports when, in point o f fact, our rank among other
nations of the world in the quantity o f our foreign commerce per
capita is entirely discreditable to us. In the quantity of our
exports and imports w e rank far inferior to every highly civi
lized country in Europe, as the follow ing table w ill exhibit,
taken from the Statistical Abstract o f the United States for
1907, page 73S:
Imports and exports per capita of countries, 10OS.
Country.
France-------- -----------------------------------------------------------
_ j"“““
Imports.
17.30
34.87
70.23
53.77
93.90
45.03
22.53
21.25
62.31
64. S3
25.86
28.05
184.36
36.22
29.23
81.97
68.45
21.13
. 22.10
54.87
85.70
70.70
75.30
39.84
29.25
29.S9
66.06
55.55
24.77
22.53
143.01
21.91
22.93
59.97
42.49
38.34
The imports of the German Empire, of France, United King
dom, of the Netherlands, of Norway and Sweden, of Switzer
land, exceed, their exports by hundreds of millions, but the ex
ports of Siam, Egypt, Peru, B ritish Indies, H aiti, Cuba, Mexico,
Russia, Santo Domingo, and the Kongo have their exports ex
ceeding their imports, and w e are not in a good class if civiliza
tion and intelligence are considered.
1909.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE.
We are in the activity of our foreign commerce, however, de
cidedly ahead of the Kongo Free State, Persia, Peril, Paraguay,
India, Siam, and Turkey. Our country can feel but little pride
in the school of political economy, if organized blind greed can
be called a school of political economy, controlling the United
States and its pitiful comparison with the foreign output of
the other intelligent nations of the world. Let us a t least equal
Great Britain, which has learned the economic truth that pro
hibitive tariffs obstruct and do not promote commerce, and let
us act upon that policy, retaining our tariff for revenue, high
enough for honest incidental protection and no higher.
Our patriotic citizenship has been grossly misled by the
leaders of the party in power as to our comparative commercial
activities.
The growth of our exports and imports show a small relative
increase:
Our total Im ports:
1881____________
1890____________
1900____________
1907____________
Our total exports :
1881____________
1890____________
1900____________
1907____________
Population in—
1881____________
1890_________
1900____________
1907 (estim ated)
650,
773,
830,
1, 415,
000,
000,
000,
000,
000
000
000
000
883, 000,
845, 000,
1, 370, 000,
1, 853, 000,
000
000
000
000
58, 000, 000
62, 000, 000
75. 000, 000
88 , 000 , 000
It will be seen from these tables that notwithstanding the
tremendous improvement in modern machinery and the in
creased output from that source, and the wonderful growth of
seagoing vessels and their freight-carrying capacity, our exports
and imports have about doubled in twenty-six years and have
not increased much faster than our population. This is a dis
creditable showing to the intelligence of the American people.
It will thus be seen, Mr. President, that our exports and im
ports are small compared to the exports and imports of na
tions whom w e have been taught to believe inferior to us; but
in the building of a nation we are ourselves vast consumers of
our own products, and this must stand to our credit.
It will also be seen that our exports and imports have not
grown in the last quarter of a century much more rapidly than
°ur population, which shows in fact that w e have not kept pace
in foreign exports with the enormous productive capacity of
modern machinery and invention.
These are facts worthy of consideration, which tend to show
the natural conse
@FedFRASER