New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-05-26
SENATOR ALDRICH'S SPEECH.

The sneech of Senator Aldrich invites fair
and unprejudiced consideration. not only by its
marked ability and earnest effort to meet the
minds of men who dissent from him, but be-
cause il is probably the only full explanation
which will be made on behalf of the committee
of the changes proposed in the House Tariff bill.
The spirit of the Senator's remarks is admlra-
bic and will not be criticised by those who dis
sent most widely from some of the conclusions
he reaches. At the outset he will be criticlsed,
however for the statement that II was under
stood during the Presidential campaign that in
event of Republican success no extreme tariff
legislation would follow. for. IL the remark 2p-
plies at all TO the existing discussion, 1t seems
to imply that the bill proposed by the House
was extreme tariff legislation, and since that Is
in general much lower than the act of 1890 that
the last Republican tariff was extreme tarh
legislation. 1t may fairly be doubted whether
the act which secured the highest prosperity ever
enjoyed by this country deserves that descrlp-
ton. and if il does not. the House bill as whole
obviously deserves it still less.
II is certainly true. as Senator Aldrfch points
out. that improvements far greater than were
imagined a few years ago have been effected
In some industries, so that rates as high as
those Of 1890 are no longer needed. But the
whole question is whether the Senate committee
has confined It's rejection to products of such
Industries, or has continued them where reduc-
ton involves both loss of revenue and impair
ment Of protection. Senator Aldrich states with
great defniteness the belief Of the committee
that the rates have not in any case been reduced
below the protective point that every industry
will be enabled TO meet foreign competition On
equal terms But this is the very question upon
which many are dissenting from the Judgment
OF the committee and while it was not possible
in a single speech to so over the evidence IN
detail regarding each item or even each sched-
ule, the explanations to be given by the com
mittee when the various schedules are reached
will be awaited with deep interest. 1t is entirely
true that genuine Protectonists do not desire
duties which go beyond the point Of sufficient
protection, and are quite aware, as the Senator
argues that such duties are made points OF
destructive attack and tend TO render the tariff
less stable. But 1t Is equally true that genuine
Protectionists distinctly do not wish to have n
single industry sacrificed. 10 be crushed down
By foreign competition. through want of wis
dom or of courage carry ont the mandate Of
the people in the election of 1896.
The elaborate explanation of the sugar schcd-
ule can only be criticised intelllgently in the
light Of the tables and data submitted by Senator
Aldrich which could not be transmitted in de-
tail by telegraph. With the aid of such facts as
are now available it is not possible TO under
stand the Senator's claim that the benefit So
cured to rcfiners under the Senate Tariff bill is
less than II would be under the House bill or is
under the present law. The Senator appears
not TO rest his case upon success in making this
clear for he argues al length that the German
bounty on refined sugar is already threatening
10 control the American market. that German
granulated and raw beet sugar have for months
been sold on an absolute parity of value and
that the cost of refining here is about half
cent per pound. whence he concludes that The
dIfferentals proposed In the Senate bill are not
excessive Certainly they would not he if, as
he claims. they do not exceed 15.4 cents per 100
pounds But the provision Of the Senate bill
that additional duty shall be imposed equivalent
to the bounty paid. whatever it be- appears TO
deprive this reasoning Of much of it's force.
The Senator's estimate Is that the bill will
yield for the coming year only STA IA 900 from
customs besides the $S00000O from tea, and
that the internal revenue will be $40. 200.
including an estimated increase Of S23,900.OU
from the internal taxes on fcrmented liquors,
cigarettes, tobacco and snuff. The question
which the Republicans in the House and many
elsewhere are asking is whether there was, in