OCR Interpretation

Maryland suffrage news. (Baltimore, Md.) 1912-1920, October 23, 1920, Image 6

Image and text provided by University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89060379/1920-10-23/ed-1/seq-6/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for 238

votes should be recorded. Both were taken in the Democratic caucus, and
are therefore not matters of public record. They are the more indicative
on that account. The facts are taken from Haines’ Law Making in Amer
ica, pp. 33-35.
By reason of criticisms of the secret caucus system the Democratic
leaders proposed a caucus rule providing for somewhat less than half
way publicity, with publication of the yeas and nays only on demand of
one-fifth of those present. Harrison of Mississippi offered the two sub
stitute rules following:
‘To. Hereafter all Democratic caucuses shall be open to the public
and newspaper representatives.
“u. The caucus shall keep a journal of its proceedings, which shall
be published after each meeting, and the yea and nay votes on any ques
tion when taken in caucus shall be entered on the journal.”
Cox voted yea on the Harrison substitute, thus favoring full publicity
of caucus proceedings; but the motion was lost, 49 to 89.
When Lindbergh of Minnesota introduced a resolution to investigate
the money trust, Henry of Texas introduced another resolution calling
for a special committee on the subject, thus throwing the matter into the
caucus. In the caucus Underwood proposed that the investigation be
conducted by the Committee on Banks and Banking, containing a number
of bankers and almost inevitably partial to banking interests.
On February 7, 1912, Cox voted (one of a minority of 66 against
115) for the Henry resolution. He then favored an investigation by an
impartial committee rather than by the standing Committee on Banks and
Cox and Economy
By contrast with his pension record, Cox stood for economy in various
small matters of Government expenditure.
On July 30, 1909, he voted to recommit to the Committee on Accounts
a motion for an assistant tally clerk, an official alleged to be unnecessary
(C. R., 4660).
A month earlier, however, he was recorded as not voting on a reso
lution for covering back into the Treasury the unexpended balances of
river and harbor appropriations (June 21, 1909; C. R., 3616).
On July 20 of the same year he voted against allowing traveling
expenses to the President (C. R., 4583).
On December 10, 1909, he voted against a resolution allowing clerks
to the inactive committes on Pacific Railroads, Private Land Claims, and
Alcoholic Liquor Traffic (C. R., 86).
On a bill allowing the franking privilege to ex-Presidents, he answered
present (April 6, 1910; C. R., 4331).
These are unimportant matters, but they seem to indicate an inclina
tion to care in the scrutiny of small items of expense.
Will Speak on
Democratic Candidate for Congress from the Fourth Congressional District will follow Mr. Starr
At Just Government League Headquarters, 817 N. Charles Street
Mrs. C. N. Gabriel will pour tea.
J. G. L. members and their friends are cordially invited to attend.
Mention the Maryland Suffrage Newt When Patronizing Our Advertisers.
TLhe Specially Stuxfj of Authentic JiocLeA'
Behvoan Saratoga and z&yxuugton Stroatae
Cox and the Tariff
“I will say frankly that I am not for free wool at this time, favoring
a cut of about 50 per cent, in the whole woolen schedule” (C. R., 821).
This quotation from Cox’s speech of May 1, 1911, will serve as an
illustration of his compromising attitude on the tariff, which was the prin
cipal issue before .Congress during his two terms. He took part in the
discussion of the Payne-Aldrich bill, delivering a speech on March 30,
1909 (C. R., 560-563), in which he advocated free tea, coffee, boots, shoes
and hides, lumber and zinc, the repeal of the preferential duty on refined
sugar and of the countervailing duty on oil, with such a reduction on
woolen goods as would wipe out the prohibition of imports.
He urged that revenue schedules should be so adjusted as to:
(1) “Provide a sufficient differential in the labor cost at home and
(2) “Wipe out prohibitory features.”
(3) “Apportion in an equitable way the burderts of taxation.”
Pie favored a lower tariff as a means of getting most-favored-nation
treatment for American manufacturers abroad and thus building up the
export trade of his constituents.
This speech furnishes the key to Cox’s tariff position. Not a free
trader, he is an opportunist in tariff reduction. He would reduce rates
gradually and partially as a means of helping manufacturers.
It should be noted that he apparently accepts the fallacious idea of
using the tariff to equalize labor costs at home and abroad. He further
accepts the tariff as a means of raising revenue and assumes that it can
be laid in such away as to apportion the burden of taxation equitably.
His position, in fact, is closer to that of the more moderate Republicans
than to the traditional Democratic doctrine.
His more important votes on the Payne-A-ldrich bill and amendments
thereto (April 9, 1909) are as follows:
(1) Against raising duties on barley and barley malt (C. R., 1296).
(2) Against alO per cent, duty on hides (C. R., 1298).
(3) For making all lumber from the Western Hemisphere free (C.
R., 1294).
(4) For striking out the duty on hewn timber (C. R., 1293).
(5) For putting specified kinds of finished lumber on the free list
(C. R., 1296).
(6) Against imposing a retaliatory duty on petroleum coming from
any country that imposes a duty on our petroleum (C. R., 1299).
(7) Against the bill (C. R., 1301).
(8) Against the conference report on the bill (July 31, 1909; C. R ,
4755)- .
. During the short session of the Sixty-first Congress the Republicans,
defeated at the polls in November, were busy putting through President
Taft’s Canadian reciprocity and Tariff Board measures. Both were, in
away, spurious reform measures.

xml | txt