Newspaper Page Text
PAGE FOURTEEN
HARDWICK’S SPEECH.
(Continued from Page Seven.)
cite you two authorities on that subject and
neither of them is Democratic authority. One
of them is that gentleman whose name is on
every lip and was once first in every Repub
lican heart. I do not know whether this is
still true since the panic came. I refer to
the President of the United States. Mr.
Roosevelt says that we ought to have tariff
revision after the presidential election. If
tariff revision is a good thing, if certain of
the schedules need altering, why wait until
after the election? If the people are suffer
ing from wrongs and injustices, why postpone
relief? Surely it is no sufficient answer to
say, that to give relief from wrongs and in
justices may bring on 1 ‘business disturb
ances.” The President himself contends that
this is no good answer as far as the trusts
and the railroads are concerned.
Let me inquire, in all sincerity and candor,
why the same doctrine does not hold good
when it comes to giving relief from an unjust
tariff.
But I promised to quote from another dis
tinguished Republican authority on the subject
as to when we ought to have tariff revision;
that authority is a Republican statesman,
hardly less distinguished than the President
himself, who is no less a person than the
Speaker of this House, who in the same speech
to his constituents, to which I have already re
ferred, said we ought to have tariff revision
when we no longer had prosperity. On that
subject, the Speaker said:
“Tariff revision in time of prosperity al
ways has halted and will always halt business
activity, production, and commerce. The
manufacturer will lessen his output, for he
fears to pile up his product unless there is
reasonable certainty of realizing its cost and
a fair profit. The farmer halts in making
improvements and consumes less, because there
is a shortened demand for his products. The
decrease in the wages of labor alone pending
revision would amount to many hundred mil
lion dollars. Where there is confidence and
prosperity without precedent, there would be
doubt and destruction of confidence.
“I heartily endorse the platform lately
adopted by the Republicans of Indiana, which
in substance says that the Republican party
will revise the tariff when it will do more
good than harm to the masses of the people.”
The latter part of this utterance smacks
of some delphic oracle, when the Speaker says
that the Republican party will revise the tar
iff “when it will do more good than harm to
the majority of the people.” It is my judg
ment that if the Speaker is left to decide when
the time shall arrive that we might possibly
hope to see it twenty-four hours in advance
of judgment day. Still, after all, the propo
sition of the Speaker was that the tariff ought
to be revised when hard times came, and I
think it would be a good thing for the coun
try if we could act in accordance with the
Cannon doctrine instead of the Roosevelt doc
trine, and revise the tariff now, when we no
longer have the prosperity of which our
friends have been so long boasting. (Ap
plause.) Under the Cannon doctrine what
THE JEFFERSONIAN.
better time for revision than the present could
be selected?
Now, let me call your attention to one spe
cific reason why the tariff ought to be revised
at once. It is an undoubted and pndeniable
fact that many large American manufacturers
are selling enormous quantities of their prod
ucts very much cheaper abroad than they are
at home. Two years ago the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dalzell) said on this floor
that only 3 per cent of the steel output, for
instance, was sold to the export trade at a
lower price than it was sold at home. There
was considerable debate on this floor as to
whether American manufacturers were selling
cheaper abroad than at home. The gentle
man from lowa (Mr. Hepburn), as I remember
it, took one horn of the dilemma and denied
the allegation that there was a. difference in
the two prices; the gentleman from Pennsyl
vania (Mr. Dalzell) took the other horn of
the dilemma. He confessed and avoided. He
said that it was a good thing, because, other
wise, American labor would have been out
of employment. He said there was very little
of it anyhow, and that it was necessary in or
der to keep American labor from going home
to a hungry and foodless family. In support
of his contention he cited the testimony of
Judge E. H. Gary, chairman of the board of
directors of the United States Steel Corpora
tion, delivered before the Committee on Mer
chant Marine and Fisheries, on April 11, 1906.
I invite the attention of the House, and of
the country, to this colloquy between Judge
Gary and Mr. Spight, of Mississippi, a mem
ber of that committee.
“I would like to ask this question,” said
Representative Spight: Has your company
ever delivered your product in foreign yards
at a cheaper rate than you sell to the domestic
customers at your mills ? ’ 1
“The United States Steel Corporation is not
an operating company,” replied Judge Gary,
“But I suppose you refer to our subsidiary
companies. I have already stated that we
have sold some of our products for export at
certain prices, but those prices were f. o. b. the
mill, and we have never delivered our products
abroad for less than the cost to the domestic
consumer at our mill.”
Now, in opposition to that statement of
Judge Gary, I desire to invite the attention
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Dalzell) to an article from the New York
Commercial on January 2, 1908. This paper
is considered to be one of the greatest com
mercial papers in the country, and its utter
ances are generally accepted as high authority
on matters industrial, commercial and finan
cial. In the course of the article to which I
refer, and which I shall read, a citation is
made from the Industrial World, an iron and
steel publication, of Pittsburg, Pa., which is
not suspected of having any Democratic ten
dencies. The article reads as follows:
“Independent makers of tin plate and
sheets are complaining over a report that the
United States Steel Corporation has sold to
Welsh tin plate makers 100,000 tons of sheet
bars at $lO a ton cheaper than they are quot
ing to manufacturers in the United States.
Incidentally, the manufacturers of tin plate %
and sheets are chafing because they are un
able to get steel bars at a price in keeping
with prevailing conditions.
“Advocates of lower duties are using the
recent sale as an argument against the high
tariff which enables the United States Steel
Corporation to hold up the American steel
makers for $29 a ton, while the same product
is laid down at Swansea for $21.98. The cost
of transportation to Wales is about $4.10 per
ton, so that the actual price received f. o. b.
Pittsburg, is $17.80, against $29 quoted to
the consumers in the Pittsburg district.”
The Industrial World, an iron and steel
publication in this city, which was founded
for the purpose of maintaining the high tariff,
in an editorial condemning the transaction,
says:.
“Viewed from any conceivable standpoint
these transactions deserve the severest con
demnation. What does most to discredit the
protective tariff system, what does most to
unsettle the confidence of American consum
ers in the maintenance of the prices on all
steel products, what does most to expose the
sham in the claims made as to casts of iron
and steel production, what does most to show
that international price and agreements are
likely to become universal, is the dumping of
steel in foreign markets at prices enormously
lower than the domestic rates. Nothing ca
do more to discredit the protective tariff s
tern than such operations. The tariff on sl
material is high, yet it is only $6.70. Did
the Steel Corporation tie the foreign powers
up tight, and did not the latter know that if
they resold, their shipments would be stopped
very promptly? They could ship these bars
to the United States at a profit after paying
transportation charges. The cheap plea of
keeping mills going and employing labor
through these exports is an insult to the in
telligence of the American public. How much
more employment would be created if tH
domestic prices were reduced to half a
much?”
Surely the gentleman from Pennsylvani
will not contend that either one of these new;
papers has manufactured statements in c
der to help the Democrats or to hurt the R
publicans. I do not believe that he will, -
can, dispute the facts stated in that articlf
When—no, I will not say thieves, but hi
protectionists fall not, then honest men m.
hope to get their dues. (Laughter and a ±
plause.) The gentleman from Pennsylvani
said on the floor of this House two years ag
that we had to sell to the export trade at
smaller price in order to keep American labo
employed.
Mr. Chairman: The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. Clark of Missouri: I yield to the gen
tleman fourteen minutes, which is the rest of
my hour.
Mr. Hardwick: I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from* Pennsylvania contend
ed that these sales must be made at a low,’ K
price to foreign consumers than to
consumers in order that the American work
man might not go to a desolate home and a
foodless feast, and yet this paper, which was
“founded for the purpose of maintaining a