The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1901-05-24
OPPOSE REVISION.
TARIFF QUESTION MUST NOT
BE REOPENED.
Tho Babcock Program for Dealing with
the Iron and Steel Combine Would Re
suit In Wrecking Many Concerns Not
Connected with the Big Trust.

Connected with the Big Trust.
II was much interested in the clear
and emphatic interview with Mr..
Payne. chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee of Congress, pub
lished in the Mail and Express con-
corning Representative Babcock's
proposition to revise the Dirgley Tar
if law" said Charles A. Moore. 'As
president of the American Protective
Tariff League, | was naturally some
what surprised when Mr.. Babcock an
nounced last February his idea that
manufactured products of steel should
be placed upon the free list. Soon aft
er Mr.. Babcock presented that bill in
the house he was a guest at the annual
dinner here in New York of The Pro-
| tective Tariff League. But he did not
discuss his bill at that time. either in
his after-dinner speech or in private
conversation.
ut Is reassuring to learn, from such
Ill duluOllly do TIC thuii man Va I'M
Ways and Means Committee, that Mr..
Babcock's revival of the topic of Tar
if revision meets with no sympathy
from his Republican colleagues, at
least along the line that he proposes.
do you agree with Chairman Payne
that Mr.. Babcock cannot excite an
agitation at this time for a revision
of the TARIFF"
Eyes. | agree with Mr.. Payne and
with other Republican members of that
committee and with several Senators
who are in the Finance Committee
with whom | have consulted" replied
Mr. Moore. 81 have also received the
opinions of many manufacturers, bust
ness men and Of those acquainted with
the feeling of workingmen, and | am
convinced that there can be no re-
opening of the general Tariff question,
either this summer or when the next
Congress convenes. Any student OF
trade conditions and of their relations
to customs duties and the national
revenue will admit that there might be
made some changes in the Tariff
schedules that would be of advantage
to both producer and consumer. No
system of Tariff schedules was ever
constructed that would not bear
amendment from time to time.
ut is that recognized fact that
causes the periodic discussion Of tn:
wisdom of creating permanent Tar
if commission. But the genius of our
institutions is against even the SEM
blance of government by commissions:
and, moreover, a Tariff commission
could do nothing more than make rec
concentrations, upon which the Con-
gress could act, under the Constitl-
ton, as it pleased. The usefulness
therefore, of commission to consider
questions affecting Federal revenue is
doubtful But, aside from that, the
changes that might be made to advant-
age in the present Tariff law are both
too few in number and too unimport-
ant to warrant a reopening of the
subject. Agitation Of the Tariff ques-
ton is inevitably disturbing to trade,
causing uncertainty and hating new
enterprises. 1t should occur, there
fore, at as widely separated intervals
as possible"
"Mr. Babcock asserts that his prop
osition is to strike at the so-called
steel trust, and that it is, therefore, a
polite step for the Republican party to
take"
81 do not agree with Mr.. Babcock
in that idea," replied Mr.. Moore. He
is chairman of the Republican Con-
gresisonal Campaign Committee, and
| am afraid that his intimate knowl-
edge of local party and factional con-
ditions in many Congressional dis
trcts has distorted his perspective, so
to speak, of the general question. l
would say that neither his bill nor any
other legislation can destroy the Unit
ed States Steel Corporation without
| first destroying every smaller and in
| dividual concern engaged in the same
| business. These smaller makers of
steel products have their specialties in
manufacturing. Some of them prob
ably will sell their output to other con-
Germs that have been amalgamated in
the steel trust. Others will continue
to retain their own customers, at
home and abroad. But il steel goods
were placed on the free list, these in
dividual manufacturers would be
forced to the wall, because the steel
trusts of Great Britain, France and
Germany, If our tariff barrier were re-
moved, would dump their surplus
product upon our market at prices that
the smaller manufacturers could not
meet. Only the big corporation could
survive; and that combination of men,
who are kings in the several branches
of their business, being united, could
compete successfully, believe, at home
or abroad, in any part of the world,
with any foreign Unsupported for
eign governments do not erect prohib-
tive tariff barriers against us.
I'm other words, the proposition of
Mr.. Babcock would in the end play
into the hands OF the so-called Amer
loan Steel Trust which ha thinks