The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-08-20

| permanent differential between the
| cost Of production in the foreign
| countries and that in the United
States, and therefore when changes
| take place in the conditions of pro-
| duction in the United States, it is time
| that schedules be re-examined and if
excessive that they be reduced so as
| to bring them within the justification
| for the rule, by which the amount of
| tariff to be imposed under the pro-
| tective system is properly determined.
Whenever the tariff imposed is
| largely in excess of the differential be-
| tween the cost of production in the
| two countries, then there is formed at
| once a great temptation to monopolize
the business of producing the par
| ticular product, and to take advantage
| of profit in the excessive tariff. This
| denies to the people altogether the
economies of production that competi-
| ton under a protective tariff should
develop.
Some Schedules Excessive.
In the enormous progress in the
| manufacturing plants and the improve
ment in methods which have been
brought about in the last ten years
in this country, there is the strongest
reason for thinking that in many in
dustries the difference between the cost
of production in this country and
abroad, has been reduced.
This is an opinion of mine formed "a
priori' because 1 am a sincere believer
in the efficiency of the protective sys-
tenn ultimately to cheaper the cost OF
production. The opinion has been con-
firmed by conversation with manufac-
turers and others who knew something
of what they speak.
1 am not myself a tariff expert but
my general conclusion formed as above
finds striking support in the action of
the National Association of Manufac-
turers of the United States upon this
very question. A committee appointed
by that body for the purpose, investi-
gated the question whether the tariff
had not in respect to many articles by
change in conditions become excess
sive.
This National Association of Manu-
facturers is composed almost wholly of
protectionists, and 1 think we may safe
committee lays down in it's report the
following doctrine, which seems to me
of the orthodox Republican type;
Protection, as the word implies, re-
Quires that the tariff schedules be Such
as protect our manufacturers against
undue pressure from foreign compet1-
ton, and maintain our high wage scale
and standard of living. The minimum
measure of protection is, therefore, as
President Roosevelt said The differ
ence in the cost of production in this
country and abroad These protective
schedules, thus figured, must carry with
them a very ample margin for safety
1t must make full allowance for the
possibility of hard times abroad and
good times here; for dumping, and all
other contingencies. This done, 1t is
truly protective; and it is only SO, as
it covers these features and nothing
more"
After referring to the fact that there
were some articles in which the tariff
was hardly high enough, the conclusion
of the committee was stated as fol-
lows:
'Confining ourselves to the protective
principle, we find many schedules
some of them upon prime necessities of
life-returning the government no rev.
enue of consequences, and yet under the
ing q tariff schedule-not merely equal
to the difference in the cost of pro-
duction here and abroad, with all rea-
sonable contingencies allowed for-but
decidedly in excess of the total wage
cost of production in this country"
Vote of Association.
In that body of members of 1,S00-350 |
or 20 per cent, were radically opposed to |
revision; per cent were opposed to re-
vision at this time lest 1t unsettle bust |
ness; SIS per cent wished revision, and II |
per cent were Indifferent or uniformed !
Taken by industries, out of n different |
industries tabulated, Sc voted for revis- |
ion, casting a total of 1910 votes; Is in |
dustries voted against revision, casting |
a total of 102 votes; industries were |
each tied in their votes, casting a tota, |
of % votes.
The association then by resolutions |
passed by a large majority declared |
itself in favor of a revision of the tariff |
at the earliest practicable date.
All that maintain is that when after
a tariff law has been in force ten years