OCR Text |
Show I HON, E, D. CRUMPACKER'S SPEECH H j (Continued from last Issuo) H ' i i ' rcnd wlth constdorablo caro tlio I, elaborate report of tho Waya and ! Means Committee In behalf of tho , , bill reported by tho Democratic mom- J borB of that commlttco and was groat- i Jj ly surprised to noto tho hypercritical i character of the objections modo to 1 , tho report of tho Tariff Board on tho aM J wool question. I have alBo read with H J ( ' much caro tho report of tho Tariff 1 Board, and I am Impressed with tho H belief that that report Is tho most 1 4 I thorough niul exhauBttvo document nf H i tho kind that has over been submit- H 1 ted to Congress. Tho criticisms H I' Bccm to bo based upon tho frec-trudo B ' theory, following tho doctrlno of LaH' Adam Smith, John Stunrt Mill. lias- m tint, and other froo-trndo phlloso- K phers. Tho nuthor of tho report H cntorcd upon his Vork with a vlow of H picking flaws In tho report of tho H Tariff Board. It Is urged that It is M Imposslbla to ascertain with oxact H. certainty tho cost of production of n H' given product In any country; that H j tho cost of woolen fnbrlcs Is not ox- H nctly tho samo In nnytwo mills, and H that tho cost varies In different sea- H sons of tho yenr. Every practical mnn H knows that. Thoro aro differences In H tho cost or producing tlto snmo Una B I of nrtlclcs In tho snmo country, do- H pending upon tho facilities, organlzn- B tlon, locntlou ,nud management of In- H i dividual mills. Thcro mny also bo H differences In tho cost of producing H a given lino of nrtlclcs at different H periods of time. But tho making of H I a tariff Is a practical question, und H . nil Congress can attain Is rcasonnblo H I certainty In fixing duties to incut K j- tho diffoncnecs In coBt of production. H ., Tho report Itself discloses with prnc- H tlcal certainty tho differences In tho cost of producing wools nnd woolens H j In HiIb country nnd In foreign coun- H tries. It furnishes a rcllnblo guldo H for making a business tnrlff. If Con- H gres shnll defer tho enactment of B ! laws until It enn embody In them B j mathematical accuracy nnd nbsoluto HB Justice, It mlgh ns well close Its HS doors and censo Its endeavors. Abso- B luto oxnetness In hunmn nf fairs ih HI an unattainable ideal. fl Tho report, of tho commlttco deals H In refinement of definition. It In- B slats that tho tonus "cost" nnd "ox- B penso" aro not synonymous; that the Bfl "post" mranB tho degrco of sncrltlco' BJ ono must mata to proilucg a partlcu- Bb lar artlclo, while "expenso" means B vtho amount of monoy ho, must pay BJ for thu purchnso of tho article. Far- BJ nicr Jones owns a horso that he can Bfl sell In the market at any tlmo for B 4160 and his friend Ilr6vn In tho BJ city, Is a dealer In farm Implements, Bfl wagons, carrlagos, and so forth, und flflj Jones desires a cnrrlago and Brown J wants u horse, Tho carrlago JoneB flj has his heart sot upon Is priced nt IJ $160. Instead of selling his horso flj for ?1G0 in cash and buying tho car- B rlago from Drown with tho mouoy, Bb Jones exchanges tho horso for tho Bfl ' carrlago. Tho transaction would be JJ ft barter. Jones In his collcgo days B tools a courdj In political economy Bfl under a learned professor, and ho Bfl was tnught tho scientific difference flfll between "cost" and "cxpcntic." Tho Bfl horso ho traded to Brown ho hnd rals- BJ ed from n colt Ho reckoned tho bc- Bfl rlflco he mado In tho way of time, Bl caro, and food for tho animal and BJ ( ' found that It amounted to $7t. Ho Bfl Congratulated himself upon tho fact Bfl that ho got n I ICO carrlago for 7G Bfl worth of sacrifice. But upon reflection BJ it came to his mind that what ho had BJ mado on tho carrlago ho lost on tho Bfl horso, and that from a business Bfl standpoint thcro was no difference) BJ between cost and oxpenso In' that Bfl transaction, whatever science might Bfl say about It. Bfl It n woolgrowor raises a. thousand BJ bushels of oats on his farm with BJ which to feed his Bhccp during tho BJ winter, and tho onts should be worth Bfl 33 cents a bushel at tlw machine at Bl threshing time, ho could soil his crop Bl for $3D0, nnd with that money buy Bfl other onts ub ho needed them to BV; feed his sheep. In reckoning ho cost Bfl of tho wool clip tho following year BS ho would consider ns a factor tho BJ 350 worth of oats which ho fed tho Bfl sheep, but If ho fod tho oats ho rals- BK rd himself scientific economy would Bfl say that ho must ascertain tho sac- Bj rlflco ho made In producing them, B and by thnt method It mlgh turn out B thnt tho onts cost him only 20 cents B a bushel, or 200 for tho thousand B bushels In tho way of sacrifice, That Bfl process would cheapen tho cost of B tho wool by ignoring tho mnrkot Bl valuo of tho onts fed to tho sheep. BR Tho a'osurlty of that klud of refine- B ment In practical nlralrs Is easily ap- BM parent. Economic philosophers BV spent much tlmo and energy wrong- B ling with each othor over definitions. BK It has taken generation to detcrmluo BB the definition of rnt nnd oven now flflj ylflBHBK n landowner who leasca his farm for Bfl; BBbbVI ?X,000 a yoar can not know, Bcolntlfl- cally, how, much, If any, rent ho receives re-ceives for tho uso of his land. Ho Is apt to call It all rent, but tho economist will demonstrate to him by somo nbstruso phllosphy thnt tho bulk of returns bo receives Is lncomo on his investment nnd not rent for tho uso of tho land. Itoflnemonts of this character In prnctlcal matters aro hardly worthy of consideration, howovcr Important they may bo In Bclonco. When I read an article, Intended In-tended for practical purposes, based upon tho "law of diminishing returns," re-turns," I glvo up In despair; yet tho law 1b recognized as sound by all scientific economists. It Is Ilka the Malthuslan law of population, It Is scientifically sound but practically unimportant. Tho report of tho Tnrlff Board upon up-on tho woolen Industry shows thnt It Is not difficult to ascertain tho difference dif-ference In tho cost of production of wools nnd woolens In this country nnd In foreign countries from n business busi-ness standpoint. It discloses tho nv-erago nv-erago cost through a period of years of tho bulk of wool grown nnd wool-oiib wool-oiib produced In other countries thnt mny Invndo our own mnrkots If our tariffs aro unduly low. It Is n practical prac-tical question, and Is bnscTl altogether altogeth-er upon business principals. Tho report contulns Information that will enable- Congress to net with business precision. Tho bill proposed by tho Democratic Democrat-ic mombors of tho WnyB and Mcnns Commlttco Is identically tho samo as tho bill that passed both Houses of Congress last summer and wns vetoed ve-toed by tho President. If thnt bill should go through both Houses of Congress ngaln It would doubtless meet tho snmo fato nt tho hands of tho President It met InBt summer. Thero aro additional reasons now why tho President should not npprovo tho bill. When ho voted It last summer tho Tariff Board had not mado its report on tho wool schedule, but now tho report Is before Congress nnd hns been for over thrco months, nnd tho President now hns Irrofutablo proof that tho bill does not oven approximately ap-proximately fix tho duties on wools nnd woolens so ub to cover tho difference dif-ference in cost o( production hero and foreign countries. Tl'o ndvocato3 of the Democratic mensuro do no protend thnt It does, but they undertake1 under-take1 to Justify It by uttacklng tho reliability re-liability of tho report of tho Tariff Board. Tho board is composed of nblo, upright, dlslntcregcd men, thrco of who aro Republicans and two of whom nre Democrats. Thoy all concur con-cur In the report. Gentlemen on iho other slilO of tho nlslo know thnt tho consideration of their bills Is "love's labor lost." Thoy know that If It goes to tho President ngaln ho enn not, In keeping with his plodgo ro tho peoplo, glvo It hla sanction and approval. They know that If thoy Insist In-sist on that mensuro It means no revision re-vision of tho wool schedulo nt all. Tho bill submitted by tho nopubllrnn members of tho Commlttco On tho Ways and Means Is marto In faithful conformity to the report of tho tnrlff Bohhl, Th dlttlaa It imposes cover tho dllTeNtiCe In cost of production hiiro tihd in foreign countries und no more. It .will reasonably protect American produccrB and manufacturers manufactur-ers of wools and woolenB, and It will likewise protect American consumers consum-ers by reducing tho tariff to such a point thnt oxorbltnnt prices can not bo exacted. If tho Ilopubllcnn bill should pass tho two Houses of Con-gresB, Con-gresB, It would ho npproved by the President nnd would become n lnw. Every Member of tho House knows that to ii moral certnlnty. Every Momber of this Houso knows that It 1b tho only proposition for tho re-vision re-vision of tho wool schedulo that may bo enncted Into lnw. That bill ro duces tho duties, on wools and woolens wool-ens on nn nvcrngo of over -10 per cent. Here, thou, Is nn opportunity for Democratic Members of this body to do something for tho relief of tho people of tho country. They have been talking long nud lustily about tho enormous burdens thnt nre Imposed upon tho, peoplo by tho high tnrlff on wool, nnd yet they persist In blindly adhering to au Impossible mcajure, one which thoy know can not become a lnw. Thoy refuse to Join with tho Hopubllcus In supiwrt of n meaBiiro that will reduce tho duty on wools and woolens moro thnn -10 per cent ou nn average a measure that will bo approved by tho President and becomo a law it It passes both branches of Congress. I gravely charge that If thero is no reduction of tho duties on wool nnd woolens during this Congress tho responsibility re-sponsibility will bo with tho Democrats Demo-crats majority In this body. They nnd thoy only will have to answer to tho peoplo for tho failure of Congress to afford adequato relief from tho unnecessarily un-necessarily high tariff on ono of the great necessaries of life. Aro tho majority ma-jority Members of this Houso acting In good faith and with an earnest desire de-sire to afford relict to tho country In persisting In their support of a measure meas-ure that they know will not becomo a law 7 Aro tho majority Members acting In good faith with tho country In refusing to support a bill that will afford relief to tho peoplo and that will becomo a law if they glvo it their Bupport? Tho Tariff Board ras also submitted submit-ted a report on tho cotton schedule, and that report is now beforo Congress. Con-gress. What will the majority sldo of tho Houso do In relation to tho cotton schedulo? A cotton-rovlslon bill was pascd last summer and wns vetoed by tho President becauso of its needless character nnd because thcro was no wny of determining whether tho duties provided In It covered tho diffcrenco In cost of production hero nnd abroad. Tho report Is ready now, and It clearly Shows thnt tho duties on cotton fnbrlcs should bo substantially reduced. It shows that they aro unnecessarily high. Tho President, In submitting tho cotton cot-ton report to Congress, calls particular particu-lar attention to tho fnct that the duties du-ties on cotton fabrics should bo substantially sub-stantially reduced, and he urges Congress Con-gress to rovlso tho cotton schedule without delny. Hero Is nnother opportunity op-portunity for tho majority Members of tho Houso to show their good faith fai-th to tho country by reporting nnd passing a bill for the revision of tho cotton schedulo In accordance with tho report of tho Tariff Board. A bill of that kind will bo approved by tho President If it passes tho two Houses Hou-ses of Congress. Every Member ot this body knows that. It la up to tho Democratic majority of this Houso to determine whether thcro shnll bo a revision ot tho cotton schedule and a substantial reduction of tho existing duties, or whether this session of Congress shall adjourn without taking any action threon ul nil. Thoy can not escape responsibility responsi-bility by capltlous criticism of tho report ot tho Tariff Board. Thoy can not escapo responsibility by persisting per-sisting In tholr support of a mongrel measure hoy kuow will nover bo enacted en-acted Into law. When they turn their backs upon meritorious measures for tho revision of tho schedulo and tho cotton schedulo upon business principles princi-ples they nsBumo responsibility for tho failure of legislation. Thoy can not deceive the peoplo. Tho issuo is Bfjpnrcly presont,qd, Thoy must face It. .'" "' "l I sincerely hopo tho Ways nnd means commlttco will report n cotton tariff revision bill In harmony with tho report of tho Tariff Board, for I know It would become n law and afford af-ford rcllof to tho country. Tho Democratic national platform, mado at Dcnvor, Colo., In 1008, contains con-tains this declaration: Wo domnnd tho Immediate repeal of tho tariff on w'ood pulp, print pnpor, lumbcrl Umber, and logs nnd that those Articles bo placed on tho freo Hat No free lumber bill has been reported re-ported by tho Democratic majority In this Congress. They have roport-cd roport-cd and passed through tho Houso hills for the revision of tho metal Bchodule, tho cotton schedulo, tho chemical schedule, and the wool schedulo measures which their platform plat-form did not specifically promise but not a word has been said nor n thing been dono by them toward tho fulfillment ot tho emphatic declaration declara-tion of tholr platform for freo lumber, lum-ber, Let mo nsk gentlemen on tho other oth-er Bldo of tho Houso when thoy Intend to carry that promise Into effect? Why has It been Ignored thus far? Lumber Is n uulvorsnl necessity to civilized ci-vilized man. Tho Bureau ot Corporations, Corpora-tions, In a roport recently Issued, shows that hundreds ot millions of ncrcs ot tho most vnluablo Btandlng timber of tho country havo been purchased nnd nro now owned by a fow wealthy syndicates. Those syn-dtcatcs syn-dtcatcs do not convert tho timber Into In-to lumber. Thoy have secured a prnctlcal monopoly of one ot nature's most beneficial gifts to man. They are holding tho timber for tho, rise In prlco thnt must come und thnt has come from Increasing domaud for lumber. They sell stumpugo to tho mlllmeu nt prices which thoy fix themselves, Thoy confer no benefit on society, but have mndo hundreds of millions ot dollars In monopolizing tremendous areas ot tlmberlands. Thoy nre tho chief beneficiaries ot tho tnrlff on lumber. Did your party, par-ty, gentlemen on tho majority, Bpcak In good faith when It declared unequivocally un-equivocally In favor of freo lumber, und freo logs? Did you mean It then and do you mean it still? If you wero in good faith In that declaration, de-claration, why bovo you not reported report-ed and passed a bill providing for free lumber? Tho majority of your Bldo ot the Houso came from tho Southern States where thoro aro extensive ex-tensive timber Interests Can this bo thu reason you havo made no ef fort to put lumber on the free list in fulfillment of your pledgo? Is it posslblo that you have been innocu-latcd innocu-latcd with the virus of protection In so far as timber and lumber aro concerned? con-cerned? Ninety per cent of tho peoplo of tho United States would welcome with enthusiasm a law removing the duty from lumber In the hopo that it would tend to chenpen the material out of which they build their homes and In tho belief that It would pro-moto pro-moto tho conservation of ono of tho most Important of our natural resour ces. I wonder what explanation tho Democrats can make in tho campaign this year for their complete repudiation repudia-tion ot tho specific and unqualified pledgo thoy mado to remove tho duty from lumber. Wo on tho Republican sldo aro entirely satisfied with tho record you havo mado and aro making mak-ing in the way of good faith. Endeavor Endea-vor to advance the welfaro of tho country. |