Page images

Iron ore was taken from the list and subjected to a duty of 15 cents a ton.

The duty on belting leather and sole leather was reduced from 20 per cent. to 5 per cent., on shoes from 25 per cent. to 10 per cent., on harnesses from 40 per cent. to 20 per cent.

The duty on rough lumber was increased from $1 to $1.25, on shingles from 20 cents a thousand to 50 cents.

Mr. Payne continued :

I want to speak about a few things in the internal revenue. The House put a provision increasing the tax on cigarettes equal to the tax that was put upon cigarettes in the Spanish war revenue bill. The Senate added another provision taxing manufactured tobacco equal to the tax in the war revenue bill, or about equivalent to it, and the House accepted that provision. The House did not have much difficulty in reaching an agreement upon it. That provision altogether will bring in revenue estimated at $9,300,000, and that is quite an addition to the revenues.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Senate put a tax on corporations of 2 per cent. on the net earnings. It is not for me here to give a history of that legislation in the Senate or why it was brought about, but it was brought about as an amendment to an income tax. I have no use for an income tax, and what use I have for a corporation tax is the fact that you can sometimes get rid of an unconstitutional income tax appended to a bill. It came before the conference committee. It came to the Republican side of that committee as an administration measure proposed by the President of the United States, and we accepted it. We did reduce the tax from 2 to 1 per cent., made some minor amendments, and reported it with confidence to the House. We may have preferred our inheritance tax to that proposition, but under tne circumstances we were more than justified in accepting this provision in the bill, which I hope in its workings will yet prove popular with the people of the United States.

Now it has been asked why the corporation tax as it went to the Senate excluded holding companies. There is no reason in the world why a corporation that owns stock in another company should pay a double tax upon those holdings. It is not equitable, it is not right, and it ought not to be exacted. [Applause.]

When it comes to the breaking up or absorption of a company in order to get rid of competition by another company, I will go the full length in preventing it; but I am not in favor of using the taxing power for that purpose, and, of course, a tax of 1 per cent. would not accomplish any purpose in that respect. It would be an additional burden upon the innocent stockholder who had stock in either corporation.

A word more as to the revenue. These rates increase the revenue from customs less than $4,000,000. The corporation tax is estimated to produce $26,000,000; tobacco, nine and onethird million dollars-about $10,000,000 of increase of revenue -revenue enough, when this bill gets into full working order, to supply the necessary demands of the Government; not to build the Panama Canal. We will leave that to another generation. We have provided for bonds that will establish the policy of the Government in that respect. The Dingley law during all its period of existence has provided ample revenue, and there is no doubt this law will do the same for another twelve years. Let us pass it, gentlemen on this side of the House. The duty is ours; the time has arrived. Vote against it if you want to drive your party into chaos; vote against it if you want eternal agitation about the tariff. Go on and vote against it if you choose, but do not do that on the idea that you are going back to the Dingley bill or the Dingley rates.

That is a delusion; you will not get it, but you will get agitation instead. There would come in another bill one of these days, and in the meantime the wheels of industry will stop, enterprise will be paralyzed; the country will stand still or will move backward, and you will curse the day when you failed to go with the great majority of your party, almost all of them, your President having lent his approval to this bill, if you fail to stand in the hour of the country's need and of your party's need and vote against this bill. Let us pass it when the hour of 8 o'clock arrives, and give courage and joy and happiness to the people of the United States. Let us start the remaining idle wheels of industry; let us put every man who wants to work at work; let us build up the happy homes in the United States as they will be, and they will bring the great pæans of their applause for your patriotism and statesmanship in meeting this emergency. [Loud and long-continued applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. Clark rose and was recognized amid prolonged applause on the Democratic side.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report has been heralded and headlined in the newspapers as a tremendous victory for President Taft over the forces of evil in the Republican party, represented by Senator Aldrich and other distinguished Republican statesmen. We are told that congratulations are pouring in upon him from every side.

Well, a man must have a very curiously constituted mind to conclude that the result of this conference is in any reasonable sense a redemption of Republican pledges before the last election to revise the Dingley rates down. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

I want to do President Taft justice. I am his personal friend, and have been since I first set eyes upon him. His laudable desire for the square deal and his love of fame would naturally and inevitably cause him to wish that his pledges be redeemed in such a way that he could look the American people proudly in the face; but he has been grossly misled as to the nature of this report. Those downward revisionists who are congratulating the President uproariously are most assuredly thankful for small favors. No man will begrudge him any glory justly his due; but when we reflect upon the fact that, even according to his most enthusiastic eulogists, he insisted at a late day on lowering the rates on only half a dozen items, or thereabouts, when the rates should have been lowered on hundreds of items, and that the conference report still reeks with largesse for the few and extortion from the many, his glory will experience a greater diminution than have the rates of the Dingley law.

Here the speaker presented a table comparing the Dingley duties with those of the conference report. It showed a total increase over Dingley duties, $5,649,002, or 1.71 per cent. increase. These estimates were based on the imports of 1907.

Mr. Clark continued:

These estimates do not take into consideration a whole lot of things which were taken from the free list in the Dingley bill and put on the tariff list in this conference report, and when they enter into the calculation it will run the average increase of the conference report above the rates in the Dingley bill by about 2 per cent.

The very best that the Republican arithmetician of the Republican conferees [Major Lord] can figure out as a great victory for the President and a great victory for the downward revisionists of the Republican party is that after all of this hullabaloo, after all of the time, delay, sweat, and toil on this bill, beginning on the 10th day of last November and coming down to the present day, you have made the infinitesimal reduction of ninety-seven one-hundredths of 1 per cent. [Applause on the Democratic side.) As a genuine tariff reformer, who has stood by his guns in season and out of season, in sunshine and in storm, I say that that is the most pitiful conclusion of a great movement that is recorded in the history of mankind. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

A classical scholar like my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Olmsted) must think of the old Latin sentence, Parturiunt montes; ridiculus mus nascetur," which, with tense changed, may be freely translated, The mountains were in labor and a ridiculous mouse was produced. [Laughter and applause on

. the Democratic side.]

Here Mr. Clark discussed the duty on lumber.

There is a great hullabaloo in the newspapers about the tariff on rough lumber having been reduced to $1.25. Is it reduced to $1.25? No. If rough lumber is worth $10 a thousand, when this bill goes into effect in March next the rate will be $1.25 per thousand and 25 per cent. ad valorem, which would make it $3.75 per thousand. So that instead of getting cheap lumber, which we have been clamoring for for a great many years, some on both sides of the House, we are to get very high-priced lumber, and I protest against it in the name of everyone who has to build a house between the two oceans. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

The lumber feature is a sample of the rest, 25 per cent. ad valorem increase above the conference rates on all the rest, and I say that, with that feature staring me in the face, as a proposition to reduce the tariff downward this bill is the most stupendous fake in the history of mankind. [Applause on the Democratic side. It is a colossal bunko game. ]

The people asked for bread and you are giving them a stone.

Here Mr. Clark declared that the bill would create a deficiency in the Treasury. He said in conclusion:

The final verdict on this bill is not made up by the sycophants and enthusiasts who sound praises into the ears of President Taft at this time, but the verdict on the merits of this bill will be made up piecemeal every time the head of a family, every time the woman of the house, buys a bill of goods in any store. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. Longworth supported the bill. He dwelt particularly on the corporation-tax feature. He denied that this provision had been evolved for the purpose of defeating the income tax in the Senate, declaring that it had been planned by President Taft even before his inauguration.

Three definite propositions have been considered since the beginning of this extra session--an inheritance tax, such as was contained in this bill as it passed the House; a tax upon the receipts of corporations, such as was contained in the bill as it passed the Senate; and a proposition which contained these two; and, in addition, a tax on individual incomes, which was presented in the Senate and was known as the Bailey-Cummins amendment. It is true that the inheritance-tax feature of this amendment is not precisely the same as that which passed the House, but it is, nevertheless, a tax on inheritances. It is true, also, that the corporation tax of this amendment is not the same as the corporation tax as it passed the Senate, but it is a tax upon the net income of all corporations, and in principle they are practically identical. While the Bailey-Cummins amendment is generally referred to as an income tax solely, it is, in fact, in addition to this, an inheritance tax and a corporation tax measure.

Generally speaking, the Bailey-Cummins amendment is an almost exact reproduction of the income tax adopted in the Wilson bill. Hardly any change has been made in it, except that the exemption has been increased from two to five thousand dollars. I gathered in the debate here the other day that some gentlemen on the other side would prefer that the exemption should be increased even above this point. The gentleman from Alabama (Henry D. Clayton], in reply to a question I addressed him, said that he would exempt incomes of $7,500. Evidently the gentleman from Alabama, if he had the drafting of an income-tax law, would see to it that those who voted for it should not be included in its provisions. [Laughter.]

MR. CLAYTON. I would exempt all the poor men and all the men with small incomes, so that I might get their support, in order in that way to make the multimillionaires, who now pay

« PreviousContinue »