Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-08-22

part of the ElkinS law, the charge OF the
that the Elkns law, especially in the mat
ter OF abolishing Imprisonment, was rail-
road measure is without the slightest ex-
claimed that the Elkins law was perfect.
But. while he seeks to disparage the Elkins
law, yet he admits that all prosecutions
down until this time have been under it,
because these prosecutions were for Of
lenses committed prior to the Hepburn rate
law and then says that criminal prosecu-
tons will continue to be under the Elk1ns
law, but as amended by the new rate bill.
Cites More Than 100 Cases.
"In more than 100 prosecutions the Elkins
law as originally enacted has been found q
quick. decisive, efficient and inexpensive
remedy.
mo amendment Of the Elkins law by the
provisions of the Hepburn rate law has
been invoked in any of these proceedings.
In fact the most troublesome difficulties OF
all the cases under the Elkins law arose
and were brought to final and successful
determination before the Hepburn rate law
was enacted.
The Secretary also seeks to create the
Impression that the railroads unitedly OPP
posed the passage Of the Hepburn rate law
and that they spent a large amount OF
money and made great efforts to defeat 1t.
If my recollection be not at fault the
Pennsylvania railroad, the New York New
Haven and Hartford railroad and perhaps
number of other railroads favored the
Hepburn bill. Cutting off passes was alone
worth millions to the railroads Positive
prohibition of rebates and discriminat ons
was worth still other millions. The great
trouble about the legislation is not in Its
details, but basic. involving an important
principle and policy
Senator Foraker spoke of his recent pub
lie requests that Secretary Taft give Dill
of particulars as to his tarin revision re-
views and declaring the Columbus speech
not sufficiently luminous on this point,
continued
lone who was able year ago to declare
himself unqualifiedly in favor of an imme-
date revision at that time should be able
now to give some specifications as to what
then prompted him to make such deciara-
ton. But instead. we are told that he
merely assumes that the cost OF production
in this country has so far diminished since
the Dingley law was passed that the duties
now in force are higher than necessary to
cover the difference in the cost of labor
here and abroad. Assuming for the sake OF
argument that he is correct in his conten-
ton that the difference in labor, and that
difference alone, should fix the duty. he
seems to overlook the fact that the duties
fixed by the Dingley law were in the judg-
ment of the Congress that enacted that
statute, no higher when they were fixed
than was necessary to cover that differen-
tial. and that the duties then fixed. II that
rule Is to govern. cannot be high enough
now. for it is common knowledge that the
cost of all kinds of labor has in the mean
while advanced from % to so per cent in
this country. without any corresponding adj
vance in foreign countries.
Scouts Second Reason.
For second reason for immediate re-
vision we are told that majority of the
members of the National Manufacturers
Association nave declared themselves in
favor of a revision Of the tariff.
In the first place, this action Of this as
socia ton could not have Influenced the
Secretary when he spoke at Bath one year
ago, for it was taken only few weeks ago.
Except his assumption and this action of
this association. the Secretary practically
assigns no other reason why the tariff
should be revised. except only that revision
must come some time, and that il we do
not revise the democrats may.
What 1 contend for is that before any
such revision Is entered upon the people
shol be heard on the subject, and l have
already suggested that such a step should
not be taken until after We have a chance
to consult them in the presidential cam
paign Of next year."
Senator Foraker called on the Secretary
to say what in his opinion the chief execu-
tive should do about the defiant nullifica-
ton of the war amendments to the Consti-
tuition involved in such statutes as that
passed in Georgia only few days ago.
He is properly in favor of doing all in our
power for the S0c0.OO0 of brown people in
the Philippines. who were until recently en-
tire strangers and open enemies But how
about the 100000 of black people in
America, not one of whom ever drew a
d:soyal breath who are openly and def
antly being denied their constitutional
rights Of citizenship. Is there no power to
prevent such offense against human
rights and such an overthrow of our or
ganic law?
But l would know also what the views
OF asp!rant to the presidency may be
about the new rebellion that has broken out
in some of the southern states. notably in
North Carolina and Alabama in the form
of open defiance of the authority of the
United States courts. Is this spirit to be
checked and restrained. or Is it to be al
lowed to feed upon itself and grow strong
to the point of menacing our insttutions?"