Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1907-10-02
Parity pledge. on .T.rIf..

L ~ b =
Party Pledges ON Tariff.
When a Republican politician has
been, mixed up with 4the trusts, rail-
roads and ship subsidy for twenty
years as Gen. Charles H. Grosvenor
! has, he can see but little on the popu-
/, lar side of those questions. His defeat
by his own party for denomination
for Congress may have also given him
more narrow view of political affairs.
Before leaving for Europe for Com
plete rest" Gen. Grosvenor is reported
to have said: "'The Democratic party
Itself is inclined to leave the tariff
alone. don't mean that the rank and
file Of the party are standpatters, but
at heart they are protectionists and the
tariff plank in the next Democratic
platform will be a protectionist plank"
How extraordinary this statement is
can be best understood when it is
known that not one of the Democratic
members of the next Congress was
elected on protectlonlst platform, and
every one of them would vote for tar
If reform bill, If the Republicans would
allow such asmeasure to be considered.
There are two or three Democratic
members Of Congress who represent
districts In Louisiana and Texas, where
sugar Is grown, that would perhaps In
sist that the protection that Interest
now enjoys should be continued, but
even they would gladly vote for the
elimination of the ditferential duty the
Sugar Trust enjoys Of 1s cent pound
more than the duty paid OH raw sugar.
Now with Democrats everywhere de-.
manding tariff reform and especially
asking that protection to those trusts
| that sell cheaper abroad than here be
abolished, what evidence can Gen..
Grosvenor predicate his assertion that
| Democrats "at heart are projections
sists?" AS every one with small In
come Is feeling the burden of high trust
prices and the consequent large In
crease in the cost of living, even those
Republicans who do not participate in
trust profits are demanding tariff re-
vision, and In some States Republicans
are quite freely committed to free coal,
1 free hides; or free lumber md reel
procity with Canada. The difference
between the Democrats and the tariff
revision Republicans is the extent of
| the reform that shall be brought about
| The Democrats, generally being for a
4 tariff for revenue and those Republic
cans who favor any tariff revision are
for a reduction of the tariff that pro-
tects the trusts, but still protecting
them enough to prevent competition
from the importation Of foreign goods.
l Tho Tariff Plank.
The tariff plank in the Democratic
platform next year will voice the sober
1 Judgment of the party OH an economic
question which comes to the front again
with more than the usual insistence.
The Democratic utterance will not be
Influenced by anything the Republicans
may say, or leave unsaid, In their plat
form. q
That the Dlngley act must soon be
|;reyised is admitted, even by, such uns
yielding stand patteTs as, Joseph g Can a !;
non. Speaker of the House In the last
Congress and probable Speaker In the
new Congress. The Republican conven-
ton next year will, with hardly a
Z. doubt, yield to the Inevitable and prom
Use some definite changes In the Ding
ley schedules, while declaring their de-
votion to the protective principle. They
4 Twill insist that the tariff should be re-
4 vised .'by its friends" At the same
time, the powerful anti-protection SEN
timent that has grown up among Re
publicans In the Northwest may make
1t necessary for them to be very liberal
In their promise Of lower rates.
i The Democrats will do well to make
up their minds on the tariff in advance,
and pay no attention to what the Re
publicans say about 1t. Democrats will
bear in mind that so false and artificial
a system us has grown up under the
prohibitiye rates of the Dingley act
cannot safely be corrected at single
stroke.
4 The Democratic party next year will
do well to declare Its ancient principle
of tariff for revenue, with incidental
protection, and to announce Its purpose
to make the tariff legislation Of the
country conform to that principle at the
4 earliest date. But the attempt may not
safely be made to return to that basis
at single step. A good, substantial
reduction at the start, to be followed
periodically by gradual reduction
would relieve consumers without alarm
Ing business interests which have been
so stimulated by Dlngleyism that they
might collapse II too suddenly deprived
of its support.
| For such tariff the party has a
precedent in the compromise tariff of
1888, following the notification trou.
bles. But while dealing conservative
ly with business Interests, the party
should in no uncertain voice declare Its
purpose to give tariff shelter to no mo.
nopoly, and to deprive any trust of all
4 protection which 1t might directly or In
directly obtain from the tariff. Prod.
ucts of any industry monopolzed by q
trust should go upon the free list.--St.
Louis Republic.
TariR Reform.
1t has been suggested that the Re
publican plan for revision of the tariff
shall be the creating of a commission
which shall be authorized to "gradu
ally change the schedules" AS the
members of the commission would BIZ
named by a standpat Congress and
would, therefore, be partisan com
mission, 1t is quite possible that the
tariff might be revised higher Instead
of lowering the rates. The constitution
provides that "all bills for raising rev
enue shall originate in the House Of
Representatives" and, therefore, Con
gress cannot delegate the power to es
tabHsh, reduce or increase the tariff OF
imports, because 1t raises revenue. Suct
q commission, If Congress shall appoint
one, would have no power. to revise the
tariff: 1t could but recommend sucf