Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1906-09-27
uNot pinuIey's Tariff

The Washington Post is one of the
most brilliantly edited independent pa
pers in America. 1t is strongly in ia
vor of a protective tariff, but not of the
present tariff law. Hence what it says
against the present law should appeal
forcibly to protectfonists at least and
convert them to the revision idea.
Lately under the above caption the
Post said editorially:
Having in previous issues of the Post
cheerfully paid due tribute to Speaker
Cannon's great keynote speech, which, side
by side and, figuratively speaking, arm in
arm with President Roosevelt's valuable
contribution to the ammunition of the
Republican congressional campaign, will
go marching on until the grand roundup
of Nov. 6, we will glance today at a single
sentence in that address, which seems to
US to require a few words of explanation.
When Mr.. Cannon says, 81 have no hesi-
tation in saying that the present revenue
law, known as the Dingley law, all things
considered is the most nearly perfect and
Just customs law ever enacted this
journal cannot possibly go with him. It
is held back and barred out of sympathy
and fellowship with that declaration by
insurmountable obstacles in the shape of
a lew
facts. AS the Post has heretofore said
and. what is of more Importance, has
proved, there is no tariff in existence to
which the name of Dingley can be prop
erly applied, nor has such tariff existed
since the reputation by the senate of a
reciprocity for which Mr. Dingley and his
associates made provision in the text Of
the tariff of 1897 which supplanted the
Wilson-Gorman act of 1894. The Post for
o,,d have
been stated many times in these columns,
is not in favor of executive legislation
even in the modified form of reciprocity
treaties. But the Republican party, prior
to the going into effect Of the Dingley
act, was as thoroughly committed to reci-
procity as it was to protection. 1t was
bound by platform pledges and by the
utterances of its leaders and organs to
establish reciprocity in the tariff of 1897
as "the handmade of protection. True
to those pledges and other commitments.
Mr.. Dingiey and his coworkers put a
reciprocity provision, carefully elaborat-
ed. into the bill which became law. AS
sound business policy, not to say COM
mon sense, dictated, they made the sched-
uIes high enough to bear reciprocity re-
ductions without endangering protection.
This is notoriously true. When 1t was
disputed in the senate 1t was affirmed by
Senator Deliver who was one OF Mr.
Dingley's coworkers on the ways ana
means committee 1t may be set down
as a fact of history-and a fact not dis
creditabe to Mr.. Dingley-that he said
when the tariff bill was under considera-
ton that the schedules were 'purposely
placed too high in order to leave safe
margin for reciprocity negotiations
President Mckinley Immediately proceed
ed to the discharge of the duty assigned
him by that act He appointed COM
missioner to negotiate reciprocity conven-
lions, and when congress reassembled he
sent dozen or more of them to the sem
ate for ratification.
Up to this point the reciprocity pro-
gramme progressed unimpeded. The text
OF the law and the agreements contem-
plated by that text were In accordance
with the party's policy and pledges. But
right then and there halt was called.
The overprotected interests demanded
that the atoo high schedules be let alone.
IN compliance with that demand reei-
procity was repudiated. But that was not
the work of Nelson Dingley nor Of Pres
ident Mckinley. Their skirts We're clear.
And 1t is grossly unjust to the memory
Of good man to give the name OF Ding
ley to the Ubiquitous inequities, the UNI
blushing favoritism, the oppressive taxa
ton of all the people to enrich few, that
are fairly charged against the tariff
schedules as they stand today.