s^ 
 
 ADDRESS ON 
 
 iili i Hi I lilil ill vv 
 
 UNDERWOOD TARIFF BILL 
 
 iliiiilii 
 
 THORNTON 
 
 llliiii 
 
 M Hi mlm 1 1 ifiiiiii ill! 
 
 19 13 
 
 UNIV. OF CAL. 
 F.XPT. STA. LIB. 
 
 
 VjTr'S'illliiiliirii' 
 
 ImW" t ffi III \\\ 
 
 ■i 
 
 1 
 
 in! •:!' 
 
 
 m\\\\\\ 
 
PI ,. I ' 
 
 a fi6m€T=&SB£ E = 
 
UFTHE 
 COLLEGE OF 
 
 ^/CULTU*^, 
 
 UNDERWOOD TARIFF BILL 
 
 THE SUGAR SCHEDULE 
 
 PROTESTING AGAINST THE INJUSTICE TO LOUISIANA AND THE 
 
 DOMESTIC SUGAR INDUSTRY THAT WOULD RESULT FROM 
 
 PLACING SUGAR ON THE FREE LIST AFTER THREE YEARS 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JOHN RANDOLPH THORNTON 
 
 OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1913 
 
 4170—12185 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 1913 
 
t> 
 
 f^ c ' 
 
 otft- 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 IT ON. JOHN R. Til EXT OX 
 
 Mr. THORNTON. Mr. President, I desire to preface the 
 remarks that I am now ahout to make on the tariff bill by the 
 statement that the preparation of those remarks was, so far 
 as my part of it was concerned, completed last Monday before 
 the session of the Senate of that day. I make this statement 
 because those who heard or may have read the address of the 
 Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Warren] on that Monday after- 
 noon and who now hear or may hereafter read my own ad- 
 dress may notice that there is a striking similarity of thought 
 and expression in those two addresses on a certain question 
 discussed by each of us. 
 
 I wish to preface my remarks by the further statement that 
 I request my brother Senators that I be not interrupted dur- 
 ing the presentation of my argument for any cause whatever, 
 as I should like to have my address appear in connected form. 
 In making this statement I am asking no more of others than 
 I have always done for others, for during my term of service 
 here I have only twice interrupted Senators in debate, and then 
 each time because I knew they would like to be interrupted by 
 me, and in each case they have afterwards thanked me for it. 
 In my opinion the liberty of interruption in debate in this body 
 is very greatly abused. 
 
 Mr. President, it is well known that I notified the Senate 
 Democratic caucus that I could not vote for the Underwood 
 tariff bill while it contained the free-sugar provision placed in 
 it by the House and retained by the Senate Finance Committee 
 and approved by the caucus and presented to the Senate as a 
 Democratic Tarty measure. 
 
 It is also known to my brother Democrats that I expressly 
 reserved in the caucus the right to offer amendments in the 
 Senate, or vote for amendments offered there by Others, having 
 reference more particularly to agricultural products, while ex- 
 pressly slating at the same time that if such amendments were 
 voted down I would subordinate my judgment in such matters 
 to the party judgment, as nothing but the sugar provision of the 
 bill would, in my opinion, justify me in refusing to vote for it 
 4179—12185 3 
 
 fionQ^Q, 
 
as a whole, not only on account of party tics, but because I am 
 in accord with by far the greater part of its provisions. 
 
 My reasons for refusing to vote for it without amendment of 
 the sugar clause wore given to my brother Democrats in the 
 caucus and fully understood by them, but in justice to myself 
 1 wish these reasons to be known to the Senate as a body and 
 to the country at large. 
 
 I hold, in the first place, that in my position as a Senator of 
 the State of Louisiana my primary allegiance is due to that 
 Stale and that I would not be justified in allowing my action to 
 be controlled by the party caucus on any matter that concerned 
 the vital interest of Louisiana when such acquiescence would 
 have the effect of having me vote adversely to that vital interest. 
 
 These are the views I hold with reference to my duty to my 
 State and to my party respectively, and by them I must abide 
 as long as I have the honor of holding in this body the commis- 
 sion of the State of Louisiana. 
 
 I criticise no Senator for holding a different view as to his 
 own duty, or even for thinking that I hold an erroneous view as 
 to my own, but if any such there be, I ask them to remember 
 that it is to my own State I am responsible and that L not 
 they, must bear the burden of that responsibility and the judg- 
 ment that will be meted out to me by the people of Louisiana for 
 my official actions here as their representative. 
 
 I hold, in the second place, that the promises I made to my 
 people on any given question before they so highly honored me 
 by selecting me for this position are binding on me in con- 
 science and in honor when that question comes before me here 
 for consideration. 
 
 I hold, in the third place, that when the people of my State 
 have signified in an unmistakable manner their wishes on any 
 public matter coming up for action before the body to which 
 they have accredited me it is my bounden duty to carry out 
 their wishes, so far as I can, and that irrespective of my own. 
 
 Having submitted these three propositions embodying my 
 views as to the general principles which should govern my 
 official action as a Senator of the State of Louisiana, I will now 
 attempt to show their application to the special case under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to attempt to prove that, under my 
 view of my duty to Louisiana, as defined by me under the first 
 proposition, I am justified in opposing by all honorable means 
 in my power the enactment of this bill, for I think there is no 
 contention against the conclusion that the sugar clause of it 
 affects the vital interest of my State most unfavorably. 
 
 4179— 12185 
 
It has boon admitted on the floor of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives both by Mr. IIakdwkk, chairman of the Subcommittee 
 on Ways and Moans that took the first testimony on the subject, 
 ami by Mr. Undeewood, the chairman of the full committee 
 that took the last, that free sugar would destrsy the Louisiana 
 sugar industry, though both feel justified in their course on 
 sugar because they think the general welfare will be subserved 
 by it. 
 
 It was in recognition of this fact that President Wilson re- 
 quested and obtained the three years of grace that have been 
 accorded us, in order that those in Louisiana who have been and 
 are still dependent on the cultivation of cane as their means of 
 livelihood might have this time in which to try to make arrange- 
 ments for their livelihood in other ways. 
 
 I appreciate this consideration on the part of the President 
 and thank him for it in the name of the people of Louisiana 
 principally interested, even while deeply regretting that he con- 
 sidered it his duty to insist on ultimate free sugar, that being 
 legislation which in their opinion, and in my own, is neither 
 sanctioned by the principles of necessity, nor the general wel- 
 fare nor justice. 
 
 On the second proposition, the proper regard for pledges made 
 to my constituents, I wish to say that just previous to my elec- 
 tion by the General Assembly of Louisiana in the beginning of 
 December, 1910, that body passed a resolution inviting all 
 candidates for the Senatorship to appear before it and give an 
 expression of their views on national questions, with special 
 reference to the tariff question, and the four candidates for the 
 office appeared before the legislature and gave an expression 
 of their views, and I now make the following quotation from my 
 address, which was published in the Louisiana papers immedi- 
 ately afterwards: 
 
 The statement published in a New Orleans paper that on last Thurs- 
 day night, at a conference of my friends, I had recanted my statement 
 of Wednesday and said I would yield in my tariff views on sugar, vice, 
 and lumber, if necessary, to be in line with the action of a Democratic 
 caucus, is false. Those gentlemen from every part of the State who 
 attended that large conference know how false is the statement that 
 I had recanted. They know that my answer to the question as to 
 whether I was a Democrat and would abide by the action of a Demo- 
 cratic caucus on these matters was, that while I was a Democrat, I 
 would never abide by the action of any caucus that might force me to 
 strike a blow at any of the great industries of my State. This has 
 been my unwavering position from the beginning. 
 
 I do not feel that this is or ought to be made a test of fealty to 
 
 the National Democratic Party. I hope and I believe that I will 
 
 never be placed in the position where my duty to my national party 
 
 will come in conflict with my duty to my people. But, if ever the 
 
 4179—12185 
 
6 
 
 time does come, those who have placed thoir faith In my plighted word 
 will And that their faith was not misplaced. 
 
 If my mother is to be stabbed, some other hand than mine must be 
 found to wield the knife. 
 
 I will now quote an extract from my speech of acceptance 
 after my election, which was also at once published in the 
 Louisiana papers : 
 
 Rut tariff duties must be levied. Agriculture is the great basic 
 foundation of the prosperity of Louisiana, and it will continue to be so. 
 Because the agriculturists of the United States generally raise more 
 than our own people consume we are exporters of such products, and 
 thus they do not receive the benefit of a protective tariff, while bearing 
 so many of its unjust burdens. So, if a tariff can be levied that will 
 help, or protect, if you please, those who follow agriculture as a liveli- 
 hood, I think it should be done. In Louisiana at least two of our 
 great soil productions can be helped or protected by a tariff duty ; those 
 two are sugar and rice. 
 
 And so I can certainly justify myself in doing what I can in the Con- 
 gress of the United States to help these great agricultural products of 
 Louisiana. This accords with my sense of right to those producers, 
 with my sense of duty to my State, and with my individual sentiments 
 as well, for I am descended from a long line of agriculturists, am a son 
 of the soil, and racy of it. 
 
 I don't see why party fealty should prevent me from standing by 
 these great industries of Louisiana, but, as I have said, if it does, 
 national fealty must yield to State fealty, as it did in the time of the 
 Civil War. 
 
 These were some of the words spoken by me to the members 
 of the General Assembly of Louisiana, including three who 
 honored me by their votes then, who have since been themselves 
 honored by being elected to the Congress of the United States, 
 and who further honored me by coming from their Chamber 
 to-day to listen to these remarks. 
 
 It will be noted that in my preelection address I unequivo- 
 cally declared that I would not only stand for a duty on sugar, 
 but would not abide by the action of any Democratic caucus 
 that sought to restrain me on this question. 
 
 It will be further noted that in my postelection address I 
 reiterated this statement, thus doubly binding myself. 
 
 It seems to me that every member of this body should readily 
 recognize the fact that uuder these circumstances I can not vote 
 for the passage of the present bill while it carries the free- 
 sugar provision without personal dishonor and the attendant 
 loss of my own self-respect, as well as the respect of the people 
 of my State and of my brother Senators, all of whom now 
 understand my situation. 
 
 On the third proposition, the voice of the people of Louisiana 
 expressing their views on the subject, I will say that in the 
 first days of June, 1912, a convention of the Democratic Party 
 4179—12185 
 
7 
 
 of the State of Louisiana, composed of delegates from every 
 part of the State, met in its capital city of Baton Rouge to 
 select delegates to the approaching National Democratic con- 
 vention at Baltimore and to adopt a platform setting forth the 
 principles of the State Democracy of Louisiana. 
 
 That convention overwhelmingly refused to adopt a minority 
 report of the committee on resolutions, signed by one member 
 thereof, declaring for a " tariff for revenue only " and over- 
 whelmingly adopted the following resolution : 
 
 We arc in favor of a revision of the tariff which will meet the 
 revenue requirements of the Nationai Treasury and will abate the pro- 
 tective system with the least possible abatement of our business fabric. 
 
 We hold that the tariff is a tax paid by the consumer, but in re- 
 ducing it to a purely revenue basis we would not sanction the in- 
 justice of crudely remodeling the tariff schedules in such a way as to 
 force any one industry, previously dependent on the tariff, to sell in a 
 free-trade market and buy in a protected one ; nor would we contem- 
 plate the turning of the American market over to manipulation of 
 foreign tariffs and export bounties, where the results would be the 
 wiping out of an American industry by a temporary lowering of 
 prices and a subsequent raising of prices under foreign control for 
 foreign enrichment. 
 
 We espouse these principles not solely because they would forbid the 
 heavy and cruel blow proposed against Louisiana, but because they are 
 applicable to any industry in any State and because they are the 
 necessary guides to all just men striving for a tariff reform which will 
 destroy evils for the consumer without creating them for the producer. 
 
 It is evident that this platform resolution of the Democratic 
 Party of Louisiana is an unmistakable expression of hostility 
 to the free-sugar provision of the present tariff bill, the resolu- 
 tion specially referring to the free-sugar bill that had passed 
 the House and was then pending in the Senate. 
 
 And so I feel that under each and all of the three propositions 
 laid down by me in the beginning as a guide for my action in 
 this matter, I am forbidden to vote for this tariff measure unless 
 amended by striking out the provision removing all duties from 
 sugar at the end of three years. 
 
 Aside from these special reasons which would prevent me as 
 a Representative of the State of Louisiana from favoring this 
 new-fangled Democratic doctrine of free sugar, I can say with 
 perfect sincerity that I would feel most hostile to the abolition 
 of the sugar duty, not only because of my well-known and often- 
 expressed views in favor of legislation that would advance the 
 agricultural interests of any part of my country; but because 
 of the tariff policy of the Democratic Party, with which I have 
 been identified since I was old enough to cast my first vote. 
 
 To me it seems almost incredible that the great political party 
 which lias always stood so steadfastly for the doctrine of a 
 4170—12185 
 
8 
 
 revenue tariff should now appear willing to abandon its settled 
 and unassailable doctrine on the question of a duty on sugar. 
 
 The saying that sugar is an Ideal article for a revenue tax is 
 trite and has never been disputed, and no Democrat, not even 
 a free-sugar Democrat can be found hardy enough to deny it, 
 even at this time. 
 
 This is due to the admitted facts of the case, viz, the univer- 
 sal consumption of the article, the consequent fairness of the 
 distribution of the tax among all classes of the people, the ease 
 and certainty of its collection by the Government, and the fact 
 that three-fourths of the duty goes into the Government Treas- 
 ury for the benefit of all the people, while only one-fourth inures 
 to the protection of the sugar producer. 
 
 For these reasons sugar has always been held in the past by 
 the Democratic Party to be a subject most eminently fitted for 
 the imposition of a revenue tax, and it is just as much fitted 
 for it in the present and for the future as it has been in the past. 
 
 I have briefly condensed above the reasons why the Demo- 
 cratic Tarty has in the past so steadfastly upheld the justice of a 
 tax on sugar, but they are given far better in the language of 
 the minority members of the Finance Committee in their report 
 submitted to the Senate on July 27, 1912, on the Underwood 
 free-sugar bill, which had passed the House, the said minority 
 report advocating a reduction of 33J per cent from the existing 
 rate in the Payne-Aldrich bill and abolishing the refiners' differ- 
 ential and Dutch standard, while the Republican majority report 
 advocated the retention of the present duty, and also abolisbed 
 the refiners' differential and Dutch standard, which operates 
 solely in the interest of the cane-sugar refiners, giving neither 
 protection to the producers nor revenue to the Government. 
 
 I quote herewith such part of the minority report as is 
 applicable to the point : 
 
 The tariff on sugar is peculiarly a revenue tariff. Very much the 
 major part of the tax levied upon the consumer of sugars and sweets 
 goes actually into the United States Treasury for the use and behoof 
 and benefit of the American people. A minor part of the tax goes into 
 the pockets of the producers. Upon numberless articles in the Tayne- 
 Aldrich tariff bill the duties are either prohibitive or very nearly pro- 
 hibitive, or highly exploitive, and in all these cases very much the 
 major part of the tax levied upon the consumer goes into the pockets of 
 the American producers, a special and favored class, and very scantily 
 and sometimes not at all reaches the Treasury. In the next place, the 
 majority of the tariff schedules which have been adopted by the House 
 and sent over to the Senate during this Congress make a reduction of 
 about one-third. In the face of its record in connection with other 
 bills, the House reduced the duties upon sugars and the products of cane 
 and sugar l^ets 100 per cent; in other words, entirely canceled the 
 existing duties. It seemed to us that this was not in keeping with the 
 4179—12185 
 
9 
 
 promise* of Democratic platforms to reduce present protective duties 
 "gradually" toward and Anally to a revenue basis. We have seen no 
 reason why sugar should have been excepted from the general policy 
 advocated by the Democratic Party and believed by us to be right. 
 
 Again, in levying an Import duty upon sugar for f revenue purposes, 
 we are imitating the time-honored and time-just Hied precedents. 
 
 This report was signed by such stalwart tariff-for-revenue 
 Democrats as Joseph W. Bailey, F. M. Simmons, W. J. Stone, 
 John Sharp Williams. John W. Kirn, and Chaki.es F. John- 
 son, all of whom, with the exception of the first named, are still 
 members of the Senate. 
 
 In this report they enunciated the soundest Democratic doc- 
 trine and Imitated, as they correctly said, "the time-honored 
 and time-justified precedents" of the Democratic Party. 
 
 No Democrat in this body dreamed of denying the absolute 
 correctness of this statement considered as an exposition of 
 Democratic doctrine. 
 
 It was true then, and it is as -true now as it was then. 
 
 If it is not correct Democratic doctrine, I wish some Demo- 
 cratic Senator to rise in his seat after I have concluded, or as 
 later thereafter as he sees fit, and show wherein it is incorrect. 
 
 These words were quoted by my colleague from Louisiana in 
 his great and unanswerable argument on this question addressed 
 to the Senate on June 2 last, but I choose to repeat them in 
 this address, for they can not be repeated too often in these 
 times of dangerous Democratic departure from Democratic doc- 
 trine, and they should be burned into the brains and hearts and 
 consciences of Democratic Senators. 
 
 Small wonder is it that in the debate on the sugar bill on 
 that same 27th of July, 1912, the senior Senator from Missis- 
 sippi [Mr. Williams], than whom no member of this body is 
 better posted on the history of the Democratic Party, including 
 necessarily its tariff policy, should have said : 
 
 There is not the slightest anticipation in the mind of any intelligent 
 man that it will be placed on the free list, not even if a Democratic 
 Senate and a Democratic House and a Democratic President come into 
 power. 
 
 His thorough knowledge of Democratic principles in regard to 
 the tariff fully justified the Senator from Mississippi in making 
 this statement, but we now see verified the truth of the saying: 
 " It is the unexpected that happens." 
 
 I am not false to the principles of the Democratic Tarty in 
 refusing to follow it along the strange and devious pathway it is 
 now pursuing with regard to the tariff on sugar. 
 
 I am true to those principles, and it is the Democratic Party 
 itself that is seeking to depart from them. 
 
 4179—12185 
 
10 
 
 I am no traitor to the Democratic Party because loynlfy to my 
 State forbids me to vote for this bill in its present form. 
 
 Not since the time I cast my first vote in 1SGS for the National 
 Democratic Party have I ever faltered in my allegiance to its 
 nominees. 
 
 More than once in the dark days of Louisiana politics, days 
 that have happily passed forever, I have taken my life in my 
 hands at the polls in the effort to aid their election, and twice 
 during that stormy time I was arrested by United States mar- 
 shals and carried to the city df New Orleans, 250 miles from my 
 home, charged with alleged violations of the Civil Rights Bill, 
 though my experience in these matters was the experience of 
 hundreds of other Democrats in my State and probably in her 
 sister Southern States. 
 
 Not in all that time have I failed to vote in any election, and 
 never have I scratched a Democratic ticket — national, congres- 
 sional, State, district, parochial, or municipal. 
 
 There have been times when my judgment was strongly 
 opposed to certain policies of the National Democratic Party, 
 notably in 1S0G on the free-silver question. 
 
 But while to the knowledge of all in my community I was a 
 Gold Democrat, it never entered into my mind to think of leav- 
 ing the regular Democratic Party to train with those Democrats 
 who followed another standard, although its followers embraced 
 many of the ablest and best men of my State. 
 
 On the contrary, I presided over the parish ratification meet- 
 ing held in my city and told them there was only one National 
 Democratic Party in the country and its nominees were Bryan 
 and Sewall and not Palmer and Buckner. 
 
 And I did my best to steady my people against the tide of 
 opposition that was running high among the business interests 
 of my State, and when the election came, against the remon- 
 strance of my family and friends, I rose from a bed of severe 
 illness of many days' duration and was driven to the polls in 
 order to deposit my ballot, accompanied by my family physician, 
 with his hand on my pulse and assisting my tottering steps, 
 in the discharge of what I considered a political duty, and hop- 
 ing to set a good example to others. 
 
 And since I have been a Member of this body I have attended 
 every Democratic caucus held and have never failed to vote in 
 every respect in accordance with the expressed wish of those 
 caucuses, except in the solitary instance of the sugar tariff bill 
 of last year, when I refused to vote for a reduction of 33 J per 
 cent, under which the sugar industry of my State could not 
 survive. 
 
 4179— 121S5 
 
11 
 
 I have the right* to say that in so far as concerns the perform- 
 ance of duty to my party at all times in the past my conscience 
 is void of offense. 
 
 And the people of Louisiana have at all limes retained their 
 allegiance to the National Democratic Party in spite of the fact 
 that the economic policies of that party were not as favorable to 
 the development of their great material resources and industries 
 as were the economic policies of the Republican Party. 
 
 Yet I have no hesitation in saying that the National Demo- 
 cratic Party owes more to the State of Louisiana than the State 
 of Louisiana owes to the National Democratic Party. 
 
 Louisiana received no aid from the National Democratic Party 
 when she overthrew carpetbag and negro rule and established 
 the right of the intelligence and virtue of the State to control it 
 instead of its ignorance and corruption. 
 
 Through the courage and determination of her white people 
 she established white supremacy in the face of national Repub- 
 lican domination and with Federal bayonets at the polls, sta- 
 tioned there in the attempt to coerce her people, and' she 
 maintained it under successive national Republican adminis- 
 trations, and she will maintain it forever, no matter what party 
 may be in power at Washington. 
 
 Happily for Louisiana and for the country at large, the time 
 has long passed when the Republican Party had either the 
 ability or the inclination to coerce the States of the South, and 
 the time will never come again in the history of this country. 
 
 The great majority of the present generation in Louisiana 
 have grown up since the dark days of reconstruction and know 
 nothing of it save by tradition. 
 
 And the only difference they have seen in the State, arising 
 from changes of national administrations, is the difference of a 
 few Federal officeholders. 
 
 They have seen the hand of the General Government under 
 Republican administrations always stretched out to afford them 
 relief in their times of distress due to pestilence and floods, 
 and they know that the National Democratic Party, if it had 
 been in power, could have done no more for them in this 
 regard. 
 
 They know nothing of what their fathers endured in the 10 
 years that followed the Civil War, and their thoughts are of 
 the present material conditions of their State and not of the 
 animosities of the past. 
 
 But we, the fathers, remember, and we have constantly 
 striven to steady the impulses of the sons in favor of the 
 National Democratic Party and keep them true to the faith 
 
 4170—12185 
 
12 
 
 And now they are to bo slain by the party in which they have 
 placed (heir trust and for which the people of Louisiana have 
 given of their time, labor, money, and even their blood in the 
 earlier days, and of their time, labor, and money in the later 
 days to establish in power; and when the fair form of Louisiana 
 has been pierced by this poisoned shaft, like the stricken eagle 
 of which the poet tells, sbe can view in her body, while writbing 
 in agony, the fatal arrow tipped with a feather from her own 
 wing. 
 
 It is hard; very, very hard. 
 
 But the Democratic House has decreed free sugar and the 
 Democratic Finance Committee and Democratic Senate caucus 
 have ratified the action of the House, and the blow will prob- 
 ably fall on Louisiana, unless the consciences of some Senators 
 are quickened sufficiently to make them stay their hand before 
 the final act of the tragedy is concluded. 
 
 Some alleviation of the blow is given in consequence of the 
 three years of grace granted at the instance of President Wil- 
 son, and in allowing the present duty to remain until March, 
 1914, a concession urgently requested by both the eastern cane- 
 sugar refiners and the Louisiana cane-sugar and western beet- 
 sugar producers; and for this much we are thankful. 
 
 In this connection I wish in behalf of the people of Louisiana 
 to thank the senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Williams] 
 for having vainly tried in both the majority subcommittee and 
 full committee to keep a duty on sugar, and while we regret 
 that he would not vote for the retention of the duty in the Demo- 
 cratic Senate caucus, we appreciate his having done ns much 
 for us as he did, he being the only Senator, so far as I am 
 advised, who so voted in either the sub or full committee. 
 
 And I wish to give in the name of the State of Louisiana 
 special thanks to my honored and respected friend, the senior 
 Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Tillman], who was the 
 only southern Senator, and, indeed, the only Senator from any 
 State not interested in the sugar industry, who voted to the last 
 in the caucus against free sugar and only yielded to its dictate 
 when further resistance to its evident will was unavailing, he 
 being moved in his action not only by sympathy for his fellow 
 Democrats of Louisiana, but by his knowledge that this step 
 was not only a departure from the true principles of the Demo- 
 cratic Party but was in his judgment a grave economic error 
 as well. 
 
 I wish to assure him now that while he has long commanded 
 in the past the respect of my people on account of the great 
 force as well as the sterling integrity of his character, in the 
 4179— U:i85 
 
13 
 
 future that respect will be combined with gratitude and affec- 
 tion. 
 
 No attempt has boon made and none probably will bo made on 
 this floor to show that this act of the Democratic Party is not 
 a most radical departure from its " time-honored and time- 
 justified precedents." 
 
 The reports of both the House and Senate majority commit- 
 tees on the reasons for this change are singularly meager, the 
 first body contenting itself with saying: 
 
 The action of the committee with regard to sugar shows an appre- 
 ciation of the commercial conditions involved and the committee's 
 desire to respond to the public demands for free sugar, 
 
 while the latter gave no reasons at all. 
 
 Considering that they were all Democrats it is not surprising 
 that they preferred to give as little discussion as possible to 
 the subject. 
 
 An effort has been made, however, on this floor, to prove that 
 the Baltimore platform of the Democratic Party calls for free 
 sugar, and to justify this legislation on that ground. This is a 
 very far-fetched conclusion, but some justification must be 
 sought for this sudden departure from " the time-honored and 
 time-justified precedents " of the Democratic Party, and this is 
 a case of " any port in a storm." 
 
 I not only deny that the Democratic platform calls, even by 
 inference, for free sugar, but claim that, on the contrary, its 
 spirit, if not its letter, clearly forbids such legislation, though I 
 admit that under its letter, though not its spirit, a material 
 reduction of the duty on sugar is justifiable. 
 
 The statement therein that "material reductions be speedily 
 made upon the necessaries of life" would in its letter apply to 
 the duty on sugar, assuming it to be a necessary of life and 
 admitting it to be such for the purpose of argument; but we 
 must consider that the spirit of these words was intended to 
 apply to such necessaries of life as have greatly advanced in 
 price during the last 10 years, and therefore are conducive to 
 the present high cost of living; but this can not apply to sugar, 
 because it is the one necessary of life that has steadily lowered 
 in price during that time while all others have increased. 
 
 But at the utmost it could not be claimed that this clause 
 provided for more than a material reduction in the duly on 
 sugar. 
 
 The positive inhibition against free sugar is found in the 
 clause : 
 
 We recognize that our system of tariff taxation is intimately con- 
 nected with the business of the country, and we favor the ultimate 
 4179—12185 
 
14 
 
 nltainmcnt of the principles we advocate by legislation that will not 
 Injure or destroy legitimate Industry. 
 
 If the Louisiana cane and Western beet-sugar industry of 
 this country that has been built up under " our system of tariff 
 taxation," and which represents over $100,000,000 of capital 
 invested in factories alone, to say nothing of land, teams, and 
 implements, and which in cultivation and harvesting alone gives 
 employment to more than 200,000 laborers, and directly or 
 indirectly contributes to the support of 2,000,000 people of the 
 United States, is not a legitimate industry, 1 should like to know 
 what is. 
 
 My colleague, in his address already referred to, has pointed 
 out. the immense importance of the industry in those depend- 
 encies of the United States — Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philip- 
 pines, the representatives of the first two named insisting that 
 their prosperity is entirely dependent on the production of sugar 
 and that the abolition of the duty thereon would bankrupt them 
 through the consequent destruction of the industry, while the 
 representatives of the last named insist that they can not con- 
 tinue the industry, which is a large and growing one with 
 them, without the aid of a duty; and I shall not dwell further 
 on that phase of the question. 
 
 I repeat that the Democratic platform never demanded ex- 
 pressly or inferentially the total abolition of the duty on sugar. 
 
 The platform committee of the Baltimore convention was 
 composed of a representative from each State, and that com- 
 mittee appointed from its ranks a subcommittee of 11 to draft 
 the platform for submission to the full committee, which in 
 turn submitted it to the convention for ratification. 
 
 That subcommittee consisted, among others, of Senators Kern, 
 O'Gorman, "Walsh, Martin of Virginia, Pomkrene, and Clarke 
 of Arkansas, all of whom are still Members of this body. 
 
 It is fairly safe to assume that these gentlemen knew what 
 they meant by the language they used and certainly safe to 
 assume that they understood what they meant better than do 
 those who were not members of the committee and had nothing 
 to do with framing the resolutions. 
 
 If any of these Senators considered at the time they framed 
 this platform that it demanded the total abolition of the duty 
 on sugar, I would like to have them say so at the conclusion of 
 my remarks or at any time thereafter that may suit their 
 convenience. 
 
 I appprehend that none of them will so state, believing that 
 the most liberal construction of the language by any of them 
 would be that it left the matter open for the future considera- 
 tion of the Democratic Party. 
 417U— 12185 
 
15 
 
 We know from what has previously been said on this floor 
 that the .Senator from Nevada [Mr. Newlands], who acted as 
 a member of the full committee, considered that the language 
 committed the party against free sugar, and he preached that 
 interpretation of it throughout the campaign. 
 
 We know that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Walsh], who 
 was a member of the subcommittee, held and proclaimed the 
 same view in his campaign, and. as was very properly stated 
 on this floor by the Senator from Mississsippi [Mr. Williams] on 
 the 15th of May last : " There sits before me the Senator from 
 Montana [Mr. Walsh], who made several campaigns in the 
 West in the bravest possible manner for the Democratic Party, 
 and he was faced by his opponent in one of those campaigns, 
 who said : ' If the Democrats came into power they would put 
 sugar upon the free list.' The Senator denied it, and he had 
 every right to deny it." 
 
 Through the address of my colleague on May 15 last, pre- 
 viously referred to, we have the statement of Congressman 
 Broussakd of Louisiana, who will succeed me in this body in 
 3915, and who was himself a member of that subcommittee of 
 11 selected to draft the platform. 
 
 Mr. Broussaro, who was particularly interested in the forma- 
 tion of a platform that would not indicate a spirit of hostility 
 to the great sugar industry of his State, and who I feel morally 
 sure was placed on that subcommittee because of the fact that 
 he represented the greatest sugar-producing district of Louis- 
 iana (though I have no warrant from him to make this state- 
 ment), and who had exceptional opportunities for knowing the 
 mind of the committee on that question, not only most emphatic- 
 ally denied in that statement that the language of the platform 
 was intended to convey the idea that the Democratic Tarty 
 advocated free sugar, but asserts positively that, on the con- 
 trary, the committee refused to consider the telegrams with 
 which it was being bombarded at the time by Frank C. Lowry, 
 agent and representative of the Federal Sugar Refining Co.,' 
 asking the committee to include in the platform a plank for 
 free sugar. 
 
 Mr. Broussaro says further that the ardent plea of the Sen- 
 ator from Kentucky [Mr. James] for free sugar made before 
 the drafting of the platform met with no response from either 
 the subcommittee that drafted the ilatform or from the full 
 committee. 
 
 It is absolutely certain that Mr. Broussaro was convinced of 
 the truth of this statement. 
 4 1 7'J— 12185 
 
1G 
 
 He was a Wilson delegate at tlie Baltimore convention, and 
 was very largely Instrumental In influencing the Democratic 
 Tarty of Louisiana to select a number of Wilson delegates. 
 
 lie returned to Louisiana and assured the people of that State 
 that in the event of the election of Gov. Wilson through the 
 success of the Democratic Tarty the great sugar industry of 
 Louisiana would neither be destroyed nor materially injured, 
 and dwelt on the platform declaration of the Baltimore con- 
 vention as an evidence of the correctness of his statement. 
 
 Col. Robert Ewing, national committeeman from Louis- 
 iana, like Mr. Broussard, a strong Wilson man, and, like him, 
 powerfully instrumental in securing the selection of Wilson 
 delegates and who went to the convention as a Wilson dele- 
 gale himself, and who had great opportunities of knowing what 
 might be called "the secret history" of the Baltimore con- 
 vention, was also fully satisfied that under the platform of the 
 party the sugar industry of his State would be safe and he, 
 too, preached that doctrine to her people, never believing that 
 anything more than a reduction of the present duty would be 
 possible under a Democratic administration. 
 
 Some of the largest sugar planters of Louisiana went to the 
 Baltimore convention as Wilson delegates and they returned 
 home entirely satisfied that their industry was safe. 
 
 The press of Louisiana, that discussed the situation, fully 
 agreed with this view and throughout the length and breadth of 
 the State not a single newspaper expressed a contrary view. 
 
 The people of Louisiana relied on the representations of their 
 delegates to the Baltimore convention and on the statements of 
 the press and on the assurance given them by the language of 
 the platform. 
 
 The .speech of acceptance of the Democratic nominee further 
 fortified their minds on this question and no public word that 
 fell from his lips during the campaign was calculated to re- 
 move the impression they had received. 
 
 In this connection I wish to say that I feel morally sure the 
 presidential nominee of the Democratic Tarty did not expect at 
 the time of his nomination or during his campaign to become an 
 advocate of free sugar. I feel morally sure that his determi- 
 nation on this point was reached at some period after his 
 election. 
 
 I have no warrant from him or anyone speaking for him 
 for this conclusion of mine, but I must believe it to be a correct 
 conclusion unless he states it is an erroneous one. 
 
 I know of no clearer exposition of this question, considered 
 with reference to the meaning of the Democratic platform in 
 4179—12185 
 
17 
 
 relation to Sugar and the position of the people of Louisiana on 
 the sugar question than that Riven by Col. Robert Ewing. na- 
 tional committeeman from Louisiana, heretofore alluded to, in 
 an editorial written by him in one of his news] tapers, the New 
 Orleans Daily States, on 24th March last and which is repro- 
 duced in its entirety below : 
 
 SUa AR AND THE PARTY PLATFOltM. 
 
 Our excellent contemporary, the Mobile Register, ridicules the 
 IMcayune's suggest ion that a " free-sugar " bill in the House involves 
 any conspiracy against the sugar industry. 
 
 " It is well to remember," says the Register, " that the party plat- 
 form was written plainly and put before the people, and the people 
 knew what they were doing when they elected the party to full control 
 of the Government." 
 
 That is quite true, but our Mobile contemporary will find nothing in 
 the platform or the speeches of the Democratic nominee that either 
 imposes on the party an obligation to put sugar on the free list or 
 would justify it in action certain to be destructive to the industry. 
 
 The inner history of the Baltimore convention has never been writ- 
 ten ; but the official records show that, although Senator James, the 
 permanent chairman, declared for free sugar, the convention in its 
 platform eliminated sugar by name and put therein no language which 
 even by implication could be construed into a pledge or promise to 
 strike it from the dutiable list. 
 
 What the convention said in substance at Denver was that all in- 
 dustries should stand on the same relative level and that no reduction 
 should be made that would paralyze or destroy any industry. At Balti- 
 more it reaffirmed that doctrine. 
 
 President Wilson in his speeches followed literally the language and 
 the spirit of the platform. lie declared unequivocally for a revision 
 downward of the tariff duties. But nowhere did he assert a duty ought 
 to be removed or so radically cut as to carry with it extinction of any 
 industry. 
 
 Louisiana is making no demand for a violation of the party pledges. 
 It is not seeking to stand in the way of a vindication of party pledges. 
 It could not afford to do so without inviting inevitable disaster. It 
 is only asking that its industry shall not be singled out, discriminated 
 against and destroyed, when that industry produces an article which 
 the Democratic Party from its birth has considered an ideal article on 
 which to levy tribute to meet the expenses of the Government, and when 
 in the latest expression of the party and its candidate we find the solium 
 pledge that revision shall be gradual and fair, so as not to bring about 
 commercial, industrial, or financial cataclysms. 
 
 Louisiana opposition to free sugar involves no sacrifice or surrender 
 of Democratic principle. It is in perfect harmony with party tradition 
 and contemporaneous party expression. 
 
 Louisiana does not expect to see sugar picked out for special favor by 
 the retention of the duty now imposed on the foreign product. It 
 expects to see sugar cut. But it is appealing for fair play, for equal 
 treatment with the industries of other States, for a lowering of the rate 
 that will still leave the planter a margin of profit, at least until there 
 is opportunity for a readjustment of agricultural conditions. 
 
 Our Mobile contemporary is not within the record when it suggests, 
 Inferential ly, that free sugar is a party pledge. The " party platform 
 was written plainly." Louisiana is perfectly willing to abide the result 
 if the platform is carried out in its letter and spirit. 
 4179— 11US5 
 
18 
 
 I quote an extract from another editorial in the same paper 
 headed "Louisiana and the Tariff" appearing in its issue of 
 June 2, VJV.i: 
 
 LOUISIANA AND THE TARIFF. 
 
 What Louisiana Democrats ask, therefore, is not a concession of pro- 
 tection for the sugar industry, but a mere abiding by the pledges of the 
 party in the last campaign and the carrying out of a time-honored 
 Democratic policy of preserving sugar as a revenue producer. 
 
 The language of National Committeeman Ilobert Ewing cor- 
 tectly represents the attitude of the people of Louisiana on the 
 question of a tariff on sugar. 
 
 They understood the possibility or even probability of a re- 
 duction of the duty and they were prepared to accept it, assum- 
 ing it to be a reasonable reduction that would permit the indus- 
 try to survive. 
 
 They did not expect it to be specially favored over other indus- 
 tries, but they certainly did not expect it to be specially singled 
 out for destruction by the Democratic Party as is now sought to 
 be done. 
 
 They would submit to the present reduction, and strive 
 bravely and intelligently to make a living under it, if only the 
 duty would be permitted to continue. 
 
 And the deductions and conclusions of Col. Ewing as to the 
 moaning of the tariff plank of the Democratic platform are such 
 as would be most naturally drawn by any unbiased person of 
 ordinary intelligence who had no personal or political interest in 
 seeking to twist the meaning to coincide with his own wishes. 
 
 My people hold, and their Senators hold with them, that the 
 destruction of their industry through a removal of the duty is 
 not only a cruel injustice to them but a violation both of the 
 party platform and of the settled tariff policy of the party, and 
 many thousands of voters in the country will claim and believe 
 that their votes for the Democratic Tarty were obtained under 
 false pretenses. 
 
 The circumstances attending this complete reversal of the 
 policy of the Democratic Party on the question of a tariff on 
 sugar make it all the harder for those who must suffer on 
 account of that reversal, for it is well known to all who have 
 posted themselves on the subject, though all of them may not 
 be willing to admit it, that the agitation for free sugar which 
 has culminated in the present action of the Democratic Party 
 was begun and carried forward to successful completion by the 
 group of eastern cane-sugar refiners that I call the American 
 Sugar Trust, composed of the American Sugar Refining Co., 
 the Federal Sugar Iiefining Co., the Arbuckle people, and two 
 4170—12185 
 
19 
 
 or three other corporations, none of whom cultivate either sugar 
 cane or sugar heets in this country. 
 
 I know that the name of "Sugar Trust" was appplied orig- 
 inally to the American Sugar Refining Co.. the most powerful 
 of these concerns, and that some of the others, and also some 
 Democrats, would he unwilling to admit that the others are a 
 part of the "trust," but I claim that for all practical purposes 
 they have been in a combination for years. 
 
 I( is also well known to all who have read the testimony 
 before the various committees, though all of them may not be 
 willing to admit it, that these cane-sugar refiners are united in 
 their demand for either free sugar or a large reduction in the 
 present duty. The American Sugar Refining Co., on account of 
 its large sugar holdings in Cuba, does not wish perhaps for 
 absolute free sugar because it would then cease to receive the 
 benefit of the 20 per cent Cuban preferential it now enjoys, and 
 would be content with a heavy cut, but even that company 
 would prefer free sugar to a retention of the present rate. 
 
 It is also well known to all who have read the testimony, 
 though all of them may not be willing to admit it, that the 
 reason why this group of refiners desires either free sugar or a 
 great reduction in the rate of duty is because of the tremendous 
 and ever-increasing development of the beet-sngar industry of 
 the Western States, that has been competing with them in the 
 sale of sugar and forced their prices down. 
 
 They were forced to admit this on the witness stand, and yet 
 some Democrats seem willing to believe that these people were 
 actuated by the desire to reduce the price of sugar to ths con- 
 suming public. 
 
 Four years ago, when this agitation for free sugar was begun 
 by these refiners, there was no complaint by the American con- 
 sumers on account of the price of sugar. They knew the price 
 was low, knew that the price had fallen while the price of other 
 necessaries of life had steadily risen, and they were not com- 
 plaining at paying 5 cents per pound for the finest white 
 refined sugar. 
 
 The refiners did not care about the Louisiana product, for 
 they used that themselves, it being principally what is techni- 
 cally called " raw sugar." 
 
 But the beet-sugar industry of the West turned out ready for 
 consumption the same grade of refined sugar as tbey did, and 
 was constantly increasing its output until it was encroaching on 
 what these eastern refiners were pleased to designate in their 
 testimony as " our territory," meaning the territory east of the 
 Mississippi River. 
 417'J— 12185 
 
20 
 
 It boon 1110 necessary to Cheek this strong competition, which, 
 as they admit, was reducing their profits too greatly. 
 
 And so (liis agitation was started, being conducted by the 
 Federal Sugar Helming Co., of which Mr. C. A. Spreckels was 
 the head, under the supervision of its sales agent, Mr. Dowry, 
 fraudulently protending to be the " Committee of Wholesale 
 Grocers" of the United States, which fraud was finally exposed 
 through the testimony given before the Hardwick committee. 
 
 And by representations to the people that they would get 
 sugar from 1£ to 2 cents per pound chenper under free sugar 
 they succeeded in working up the sentiment in its favor that the 
 Democratic Parly thinks it would be good political policy at the 
 present time to defer to, even at the cost of the subversion of 
 party principle. 
 
 The testimony on these points has been detailed by my col- 
 league and by other Senators who have preceded me in debate, 
 and I will not repeat it here. 
 
 And what will be the result of this action of the Democratic 
 Party, so ardently desired by this Cane Sugar Trust? Certainly 
 the admitted destruction of the Louisiana industry and also of 
 the western industry if its representatives are to be believed; 
 but if not entirely destroyed, at least partially so, and its 
 further development permanently checked, so that it will no 
 longer be a successful competitor of this Eastern Cane Sugar 
 Trust .that I have alluded to, forcing it to lower its prices to the 
 American consumers. 
 
 And then what will result? By every law of business that 
 governs in such cases and by the experience of the past this 
 Cane Sugar Trust will raise its prices when the competition 
 against it is removed. 
 
 It will no longer fear that the advent of the beet-sugar crop 
 on the scene of action in a time of scarcity will cause it to 
 lower its prices from 1£ to 2 cents per pound, as it did in 1911. 
 It will be in supreme control of the market, its only competitor 
 having been killed by the action of the Democratic Party, and 
 the consuming public will be at its mercy. 
 
 But it seems to be the policy of the Democratic Party at this 
 time to pay far more regard to the interests of the eastern cane 
 sugar refiners than to the interests of the American cane and 
 beet sugar producers, and to defer entirely to the opinion of the 
 refiners as to the effect of free sugar that they were demand- 
 ing, ignoring entirely the opinion of the producers. 
 
 Thus in the report of the majority on the House free-sugar 
 
 bill of last year the opinion of Mr. Claus Spreckels alone as to 
 
 the desirability of free sugar is quoted, he arguing for it, of 
 
 course. 
 
 4179—12185 
 
21 
 
 Likewise, in the same report he is quoted, to prove that the 
 price to the American consumer would be reduced by the full 
 amount of the duty. 
 
 The report is very unfair in attempting to prove the same 
 thing by Mr. Willett, the sugar expert, by quoting a frag- 
 mentary statement of bis testimony. 
 
 Mr. Willett can only be fairly judged by his last expression 
 on the subject, which was that the abolition of the duty might 
 reduce the price here at times, and at other times it would not, 
 but that if the domestic production was destroyed the American 
 price would necessarily be set by the world price, which was 
 often higher that here; and that the only certain way to make 
 a permanent reduction of price here was to increase the domes- 
 tic production, the increase of the domestic production being 
 more to the interest of the American consumer than the aboli- 
 tion of the duty. 
 
 This statement was fully set forth by the Senator from Utah 
 [Mr. Smoot] in his recent address to the Senate, and I will not 
 quote it here. 
 
 The report says " the industrial position of refining requires 
 primary consideration." 
 
 Certainly, in so far as the position of the eastern cane sugar 
 refiners is concerned, they receive;! ■primary consideration'' 
 in the last sugar-tariff bill and in the present one. They have 
 been given all they asked, and they could not well expect more. 
 
 This is the same Mr. Claus Spreckels who contributed $5,000 
 to the Democratic campaign fund last year, just 50 times what 
 I felt able to contribute, and then compelled to give it in two 
 monthly instalments: but he had a great special interest to be 
 subserved by the success of the Democratic Party, while I had 
 only the general interest of a citizen. 
 
 Moreover, he naturally felt sore against the Republican Party, 
 it being through that party he had been sued to return to the 
 Government $119,000 of the sum it claimed his company had 
 defrauded it out of through false sugar weights, as has been 
 shown by my colleague, and besides he knew he could not expect 
 free sugar from the Republican Party. How much more was 
 subscribed by the Sugar Trust under various names I do not 
 know. 
 
 It can safely be assumed that these eastern refiners will con- 
 tribute heavily to the next national Democratic campaign fund, 
 for if gratitude does not compel them to do so, self-interest cer- 
 tainly will. 
 
 The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee very 
 plainly showed that his sympathies were with the eastern re- 
 finers and against the great and growing beet-sugar interests of 
 4179—12185 
 
22 
 
 this country by his remarks in the House last May when he said 
 the beet-sugar people were after taxing the American people in 
 order to finally bring their sugar to the Atlantic seaboard and 
 drive out all competition. 
 
 Hut suppose they did drive the eastern sugar trust out of 
 business, which is the very danger the refiners fear from the 
 expanding beet sugar industry. 
 
 They can only do it by underselling them; that is, by giving 
 the consumers cheaper sugar than the trust could give them, 
 and I thought cheaper sugar was the party slogan? 
 
 The sugar-beet people, operating 500 or 1,000 factories by 
 that time in at least 20 States could not form a trust as these 
 half dozen cane-sugar refiners have done and can always do. 
 
 But if it was possible for the beet-sugar people operating 
 over so great an area to form a trust and put up the price of 
 sugar they could at any time be curbed by abolishing the duty; 
 but if the domestic industry is destroyed it can not be renewed 
 readily and the eastern refiners could not be restrained in their 
 extortion because sugar would be free already. 
 
 And if any interest is to be destroyed which is best to destroy, 
 the business of the eastern refiners, who, as my colleague told 
 you, produce nothing and employ only 10,000 men, or the great 
 sugar-beet industry, producing all its product in field and factory 
 and giving employment to hundreds of thousands of people in 
 farm and factory work? 
 
 Think of the possible result to this country if this great 
 necessary of life, the production of which all other countries 
 so sedulously foster, should be no longer produced here and we 
 should have a war with a strong foreign power ! All our sugar 
 would have to be brought from over seas and a stronger naval 
 power than ourselves could prevent its transportation. Owing, 
 I am very sorry to say, to the action of the Democratic Tarty 
 during the last two years, we are falling so far behind in naval 
 preparation that at the present rate we will become a fifth- 
 rate power in four years, inferior even to Japan. Is not this 
 food for thought? 
 
 Mr. Willett is undoubtedly right in claiming that the in* 
 crease of production will bring about the decrease of price to 
 the American consumer; and I deny the assertion that the 
 people of Louisiana are enriching themselves at the expense of 
 the remainder of the people. 
 
 I claim that on the contrary they are assisting in keeping 
 down the price of sugar in this country through their produc- 
 tion of it, a production which would greatly expand in Louisiana 
 if there was some stability in the sugar-tariff question. 
 4179—12185 
 
23 
 
 Can it bo supposed that the price of an article in a country 
 will decrease on account of the decrease of its production in 
 that country? 
 
 Yet that is the theory on which the free-sugar advocates in 
 the Democratic Party seem to be working. 
 
 I am not fighting free sugar solely because it is a Louisiana 
 product and because the destruction of the industry there will 
 inflict incalculable damage on my State — damage from which it 
 will take her long years to recover and from which she will not 
 recover in my lifetime. 
 
 I am not a sectionalist. I wish for the prosperity of all parts 
 of my country, and I am unwilling to see any part of it suffer. 
 
 I stood on this floor in 1011 fighting against the Canadian 
 reciprocity treaty because it was unjust to the farming interests 
 of some parts of the country, though not injuring any agricul- 
 tural product of Louisiana, and said that I stood for the agri- 
 cultural interests of every section of this country — North, South, 
 East, and West — and the interests of the wheat and oat and 
 barley growers of the Northwestern border States and of the 
 Middle West and of the dairy producers of New York and Ver- 
 mont would receive from me the same consideration that I 
 would extend to the agricultural interests of Louisiana or any 
 Southern State. 
 
 And even if Louisiana should be injured, I would wish other 
 States to be uninjured. 
 
 After seeking unavailingly in the Senate Democratic caucus 
 to have the free-sugar provision of the bill stricken out, so that 
 the duty could permanently remain at 1 cent per pound. I voted 
 for the resolution of another Senator fixing the permanent duly 
 at one-half cent per pound after May, 191G, saying to the caucus 
 that I knew the Louisiana industry could not live under that 
 rate of duty, but even if the cane-sugar industry had to die I 
 wished the beet-sugar industry to live if possible, not only be- 
 cause it was a great agricultural interest of the West, but be- 
 cause in its survival lay the only hope of salvation of the Ameri- 
 can public from the domination of the American Sugar Trust, 
 composed of the group of eastern cane-sugar refiners. 
 
 No; I wish to contribute as well as I can to the prosperity of 
 the agricultural interests of every part of my country as well 
 as that of my own State, and where they can be helped by the 
 imposition of a duty on foreign products that compete with their 
 own I am always ready to give it to them. 
 
 And therefore I am glad that the citrus fruit growers of 
 Florida have been given protection by this. bill, even though the 
 Senators from that State are willing to see the Louisiana sugar 
 industry destroyed. 
 4179—12183 
 
2* 
 
 And I do not stop at agricultural interests, although they ap- 
 peal to me more closely than do manufacturing interests, for. as 
 J said in thai same Canadian reciprocity speech that I have pre- 
 viously alluded to, I did act wish to see destroyed a single indus- 
 try of my country that was assisting In her development and 
 giving employment to her citizens, and therefore I am glad that 
 the cotton manufacturers of Georgia, South Carolina, North 
 Carolina, and Virginia also have heen given protection by this 
 bill, even though the Senators from those States are willing to 
 see the Louisiana sugar industry destroyed. 
 
 And as no warrant has been given by the platform of the 
 Democratic Tarty to pass a free-sugar bill, so has no warrant 
 been given it to do so by the vote of the American people at the 
 last national election, nor for that matter was any indorsement 
 given by that vote to the Democratic theory of a tariff for 
 revenue only. 
 
 The Democrats did not win on the tariff issue, though in cer- 
 tain localities that issue contributed to their success. 
 
 I hear Senators occasionally say on this floor that the verdict 
 of the people last year was against protection and the doctrine 
 has been repudiated by the country. In the face of the vote 
 I marvel how such statements can be made. 
 
 The returns show that the combined Republican and Progres- 
 sive vote outnumbered the Democratic vote by more than 
 1,250.000, and we know that not less than three-quarters of a 
 million regular Republicans voted the Democratic ticket just 
 in order to defeat Col. Roosevelt in States where it was not 
 possible for the Republicans to win, and the Democratic Presi- 
 dential ticket received a majority vote over all other candidates 
 in only 11 out of the 4S States of the Union, all of them being 
 Southern States. 
 
 President Wilson could most correctly say at Newark, N. J., 
 on May 1 : 
 
 I want everybody to realize that I have not been taken in by the 
 results of the last national election. The country did not go Demo- 
 cratic in November. It was impossible for it to go Republican, because 
 it could not tell what kind of Republican to go. 
 
 And likewise Speaker Champ Clark spoke correctly when, in 
 a speech delivered in Washington on June 2, he said, speaking 
 of the Democratic Party : 
 
 We are in power by a 2,000,000 minority. 
 
 I have heard remarks on this floor to the effect that the 
 Democrats in their tariff ixdicy are embodying the views of 
 the Progressive Party also, and quoting its platform declaration 
 of condemnation of the Payne- Aldrich bill ; but they seem not to 
 be familiar with or ignore that part of the Progressive platform 
 4179—12185 
 
25 
 
 which unequivocally indorses the principle of a tariff for pro- 
 tection in these words : 
 
 We believe in a protective tariff which shall equalize conditions of 
 competition between the United States and foreign countries both for 
 the farmer and the manufacturer and which shall maintain for labor an 
 adequate standard of living, 
 
 and also unequivocally denounced the tariff policy of the Demo- 
 cratic Tarty in these words : 
 
 The Democratic Tarty is committed to the destruction of the pro- 
 tective system through a tariff for revenue only, a policy which would 
 inevitably produce widespread industrial and commercial disaster. 
 
 It was not the belief of the American people in the tariff 
 policy of the Democratic Tarty that elected its candidate, but 
 the split in the Republican Tarty that gave him a plurality 
 election. 
 
 Whether the Democratic Tarty will succeed next time de- 
 pends on two facts — the practical vorking of the new tariff 
 law and the ability of the Republicans to get together again. 
 
 If the new law works well, the Democrats may succeed even 
 if the Republican breach is healed. If it is not healed, the 
 Democrats will certainly win ; but if it is healed and the law 
 works injuriously to the interests of the country, then the 
 Democrats will surely lose. 
 
 I, however, now venture the prediction that in the event of 
 Democratic defeat in the next national election that party 
 will never again declare for a tariff for revenue only, but will 
 sacrifice its tariff policy on that subject then just as it is sacri- 
 ficing it now on sugar, and for the same reason, the hope of 
 profiting politically thereby. 
 
 There are many shades of belief in this country on the ques- 
 tion of the tariff, ranging from high tariff to free trade, 
 though the latter is not practicable now ; but certainly those 
 who believe in a tariff for revenue enly are necessarily obliged 
 to be free traders if they could find a way to pay the expenses 
 of the Government without the imposition of import duties. 
 
 In my younger days I was taught that the difference between 
 the tariff policies of the Republican and Democratic Tarties was 
 that the former believed in a tariff for protection with inci- 
 dental revenue, while the latter believed in a tariff for revenue 
 with incidental protection. 
 
 That: was the accepted definition of the tariff views of the 
 opposing parties then. 
 
 Of course every tariff levied for revenue purposes solely, 
 gives just as much protection to the home article to the ex- 
 tent of the duty imposed on the foreign article as if it has been 
 levied for protective purposes. 
 4179—12185 
 
2G 
 
 Personally I believe in a tariff for revenue but not in a 
 tariff for revenue only, because if I believed in a tariff for 
 revenue only, I must dismiss from my mind any consideration 
 whatever for the help of citizens of my own country against 
 tbose of foreign countries, in so far as the application of tbe 
 tariff policy is concerned, and tbat I can not bring my mind to 
 consent to. 
 
 I believe in imposing a moderate duty on all articles of 
 foreign manufacture that come in competition with articles of 
 home manufacture, a duty just high enough to enable the Ameri- 
 can producer to make a reasonable profit through the exercise of 
 diligent and intelligent application to his business, but not high 
 enough to permit extortion or create monopoly by destroying 
 competition. 
 
 I do not wish to see foreigners given an advantace over Ameri- 
 cans, and, if necessary, I do not object to giving a little more 
 for an American than for a foreign-made article, for I do not 
 feel that I am losing anything by helping American people to 
 live, whether they be farmers, manufacturers, or factory- 
 workers. 
 
 Of course this doctrine should not apply where conditions of 
 production in this country are such that the duty would lay 
 too heavy a burden on the people of this country. 
 
 The rule of reason should prevail, but such arguments against 
 protection per se as " raising bananas in hothouses " and 
 " raising bananas or lemons in Maine " have no application. 
 
 I do not know whether the doctrine I have just enunciated 
 makes me liable to the charge of being a protectionist, but if 
 being willing to see tariff duties levied on foreign articles that 
 will help Americans and particularly American workingmen to 
 live decently and respectably makes me a protectionist, then I 
 can say tbat I am neither ashamed nor afraid to wear the name. 
 
 Under the principles I have enunciated, sugar is one of the 
 proper articles on which to levy a revenue duty which will also 
 permit it to succeed in this country in competition with the 
 foreign product, under the moderate protection thus given, and, 
 indeed, if no sugar at all was produced in this country it would 
 still be a proper article to tax under the Democratic theory of 
 taxation. 
 
 I insert here an editorial from Henry Watterson's paper, the 
 Louisville Courier Journal, of 11th April, entitled "Tariff on 
 Sugar, True Democratic Usage": 
 
 TAB IFF FOR REVENUE, TRUE DEMOCRATIC USAGE. 
 
 Sugar is conceded the world over to be the ideal revenue producer. 
 In all countries and everywhere it is both a necessity and a luxury. 
 There is uot a man, woman, or child in America that does not consume 
 4179—12185 
 
27 
 
 sugar in some form, whether In necessaries, such as tea, coffee, drugs, 
 medicines, and canned foods, or in luxuries, such as cakes, desserts, 
 pastries, confectionery, cordials, chewing gum, and the like. Sugar 
 is consumed in greater quantities by the well-to-do than by the poor. 
 A tax on sugar is therefore the fairest, squarest, most equitable, and 
 just tax that can be levied. Its effects are felt least by the poor, and 
 its burdens, if any, are borne by the rich. 
 
 These are the very considerations that induced the English 
 Parliament to reject this year, by a decisive vote, after full 
 debate, a proposition to remove the duty from sugar, the friends 
 of the proposition urging the abolition of the duty on the same 
 grounds urged here — that it was a necessary of life and would 
 reduce the cost of liviug. 
 
 We all know that Col. Watterson is one of the ablest and most 
 consistent advocates of the Democratic theory on the tariff, 
 and no smell of protection has ever adhered to his garments. 
 
 No Democrat will dispute the correctness of the statement. 
 
 Then, why will the Democratic Party depart now from its 
 true principles, for the hope of gaining a temporary political 
 success? It may receive present benefit, but I believe it will 
 receive permanent injury by its depature from political prin- 
 ciple, and in this case from political morality as well. 
 
 Why should the Democratic Party, with its revenue tariff 
 record, sacrifice the great revenue from sugar while obtaining 
 a less revenue through protection of other articles not nearly so 
 legitimate a source of revenue as sugar, and which are also 
 necessaries of life, as clothing, for example? 
 
 For this bill does give protection to some manufacturers, and 
 it is not denied. 
 
 I find no fault with that, for I wish them to live, and the 
 Democratic platform promised that revision should be gradual. 
 
 What I protest against is the observance of the platform 
 promise with respect to some articles and a violation of it with 
 regard to this great industry of Louisiana. 
 
 No other State has been so discriminated against. 
 
 Coal is the principal production of West Virginia, but free 
 coal will not close a single mine in that State; and coal was 
 put on the free list last year on the motion of a West Virginia 
 Senator, himself one of the largest coal operators of the State. 
 
 Zinc is a very large and very important mineral industry of 
 Missouri, but free zinc or free lead will not begin to injure 
 Missouri as free sugar will Louisiana. 
 
 Sugar is the most important agricultural interest of Colorado 
 at the present time, but the destruction of it in Colorado will 
 not disastrously injure one-third of the people that it will in 
 Louisiana, where the people of one-half of the State directly or 
 indirectly are dependent on its prosperity for their own, and 
 4179—12185 
 
28 
 
 whore the other half will feel the bad results for years, due to 
 diminished revenues to support the State expenses, resulting 
 from decrease of values. 
 
 I have no hesitation in declaring that as an economic proposi- 
 tion the people of Louisiana can far better afford to live under 
 the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill than have the sugar industry of the 
 State destroyed. 
 
 There is not a Senator in this body who, if his State was as 
 disastrously affected by this bill as Louisiana is, would vote 
 for it. 
 
 He may say now he would and he may think now he would, 
 but if he was put to the test he would shrink back and refuse 
 to do it. If he did not, in my opinion at least, he would not be 
 worthy to represent his State. 
 
 The destruction of the sugar industry of this country would 
 not only greatly injure Louisiana for a long time, but the re- 
 sults would be seriously felt in other States. 
 
 I doubt if any one industry in this country has greater 
 ramifications throughout its length and breadth or sets in 
 operation more wheels of commerce in more States of the Union 
 than does the sugar industry of Louisiana. 
 
 I have with me a statement, which I will show to any Sen- 
 ator desiring to see it, of the list of supplies purchased and used 
 in the erection of a sugar factory on Georgia plantation, at 
 Mathews, in the parish of Lafourche, La., and where they were 
 manufactured. 
 
 I will not encumber the Record by giving a list of these 
 articles, but 14 States contributed to their manufacture, viz: 
 Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
 Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, 
 Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. 
 
 And what is true of the cane-sugar factories of Louisiana in 
 this respect is also true of the beet-sugar factories of the West. 
 
 I also have a statement, which I will show to any Senator 
 desirous of seeing it, giving the list of supplies used in the cul- 
 tivation of Georgia plantation which I will not enumerate here, 
 but will state they were furnished by IS States, viz : Alabama, 
 Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
 Mississippi, Missouri, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North 
 Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin; 
 the mules, I may add, being furnished exclusively by the free- 
 sugar State of Missouri and the half free-sugar State of Ken- 
 tucky. 
 
 And, of course, the water and rail transportation of the 
 country are utilized in bringing to the factory site from those 
 4170—12185 
 
29 
 
 various States all the supplies Deeded for its erection and main- 
 tenance and bringing to the plantation all the supplies necessary 
 for its cultivation and carrying from it all of its yearly produce. 
 
 Can any other industry be found which contributes more 
 generally to the prosperity of other States of the Union? And 
 this is the industry which has been fostered by the tariff policy 
 of the Democratic Party from its birth and which the same 
 party now seeks to destroy from the face of the earth. 
 
 This factory of which I have spoken cost about $400,000 to 
 bring to its present state of efficiency, and three years from 
 now. after it shall have manufactured its last crop of cane, its 
 value will have been practically destroyed, for its complicated 
 and costly machinery can not be used for other purposes and 
 will bring only the price for which it will sell as old junk. 
 
 And what is true of this particular sugar factory in Louisiana 
 in this respect is true of the 200 other factories in that State, 
 aggregating some $40,000,000 in value, for it is true, as was said 
 by the senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Williams] on the 
 floor of this Chamber on the 15th day of last May, speaking of 
 the effect of free sugar on Louisiana : 
 
 I am perfectly willing to admit that free sugar will dismantle every 
 sugar house in Louisiana. I know it as well as my name is John 
 Williams. 
 
 And this confiscation of property and the resultant bank- 
 ruptcy of so many, which will be its effect, is wrought by the 
 Democratic Party, while the people of my stricken State look 
 despairingly on while they are being slaughtered in the house of 
 those who should be their friends. 
 
 Oh ! the pity of it ; oh ! the shame of it ! 
 
 I do not say the people of Louisiana who are directly or indi- 
 rectly dependent on the sugar industry for their livelihood will 
 never recover from this cruel and needless blow, for such is not 
 my belief. 
 
 But they must tread the paths of adversity for long years to 
 come while struggling to adapt themselves to the new situation, 
 and many who have lived in comfort will die in poverty. 
 
 But in all this land there are no more courageous or resource- 
 ful men, no more devoted or self-sacrificing women, than those 
 of my own dear native State of Louisiana. 
 
 They have proved these traits of their character time and 
 again in the past, through the direful s'ress of war and pesti- 
 lence and fiood, and they will continue to prove them in the 
 future. 
 
 They may be stricken to the earth for a time by this blow 
 dealt in utter disregard of their rights, but they will rise again 
 
 41 7'.» — 12185 
 
30 
 
 through the iuherent virtues of their proud and self-reliant 
 natures. 
 
 I owe lo these people of my State a far higher measure of 
 devotion than I owe to the Democratic Party. 
 
 They sent me here, relying on my plighted word given hefore 
 my election, that in such an extremity as that with which I am 
 now confronted, my duty to my State would outweigh my duty 
 to my party. 
 
 I told them after my election that they who had placed their 
 trust in my word would never be able to say that their trust 
 had been misplaced. 
 
 Honor and duty alike demand that I vote against this bill 
 while it embodies the provision denounced by the Slate Demo- 
 cratic convention of Louisiana that met in June of 1912 as " a 
 heavy and cruel blow against Louisiana." 
 
 And I repeat here and now what I said to the Legislature of 
 Louisiana on the 5th day of December, 1910: "If my mother 
 must be stabbed, some other hand than mine must be found to 
 wield the knife." God helping me, I will stand by my word and 
 by my people to the end. 
 
 4179—1^185 
 
 o 
 
T TYER8TT5 <•> 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 22Qcf5lLL 
 
 LD 21-95m-ll,'50(2877sl6)476 
 
320952 
 
 - -/ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY