The Washington times., 1909-06-19
THE INPOSSIBILITY OF TARIFF
CONSISTENCY.

CONSISTENCY.
Tho Democrats in the Senate seem to
consider consistency a real jewel OF
price, to be held above all else political.
So there is weeping and sorrow among
Democrats, in and out of Congress,
when some member of the party votes
Tor protective duty, or for a revenue
duty which might chance to involve a
bit of Incidental protection" Mr.
Bryan, Roger Q. Mills, and now former
Representative Lamb of Indiana have
all been more or less authoritatively
quoted as sorrowing over these de-
reflections; while from time To time
Democratic Senators have approached
the limits of good temper, as in the
case of Mr.. Bailey and Mr.. Hughes,
with twitting each other of incon-
sisteney by voting for duty on some
particular article.
What's the use? Why should the
Democrats take themselves so seriously.
and why should they be expected TO
provide the entire stock of consistency
that Congress Is to use? The Re
publieans don't expect to be consistent
among themselves. They don't try TO
be. The real party split of this tariff
session has been Republican, not
Democratic, affair; yet there seems TO
be more concern for the one Demo-
cratic lamb that strays over, for the
sake of a local interest, to the AIdrich
fold, than there Is for the ninety and
nine Republican insurgents who con-
stantly and almost uniformly vote
against the majority Of their party.
Not all the diseredit for disloyalty to
party pledges and platforms and ira
ditions should be assumed by the
Democrats, when the Republican ma
jority in the Senate is day by day
forcing a revision which Is disIoyal to
the pledges OF their platform and their
candidate. Mr.. Bryan was for free lum-
Der; Mr. Taft was for effective down
ward revision; Is it any worse for a
few Democrats to vote for a lumber
duty than it is for the Republican ma
iority to repudiate Mr. Taft and de-
clare as the very keynote OF the or
eanization program that there never
was any pledge of downward revision
The Democrats have not been treated
fairly in this matter. and they have
not treated themselves fairly. They
have called attention to their own little
differences when if they deserved
the commissions they hold from a great
party, they would forget these Incl
dents and talk about the sins of the
opposition.
There Is no consistency about max
ing a tariff under present conditions
Il Is political, not an economic, af-
fair The present revision has seen
sn end Of the old-style academic dis
cussions about protection and free
sad There are no free traders left
There are some who call themseiye.
revenue tariff advocates, but they arc
apt TO be found reaching for the bit ot
incidental protection" when a hom,
interest is involved. The free trader,
have been swamped by the world.
tidal wave of protection sentiment
There is only one free trade isIet left
in this whole protective world, and
even it is in fair way to be submerged
beneath the flood. 10 can't hold out
alone against the whole worlds sys
tenn.
And SO with the Democrat wh,
would pretend 10 be absolutely q
reyenue-tariff man. lie sees everybod,
else on the lookout for the butterIns
Of Incidental pro.action" on hi
revenue tariff bread. and he wants
bit himself Il is inevitable, and Il
doesn't mean anything more than th
natural disposition TO accept con
ditions as they are.
But aside from all this there i
plenty OF opportunity for the Demo
erats to be useful and influential, an'
10 have a distinct policy of their own
They should be for a sane, business
3 like reYision; for an endigg OF dutie
, which protect monopolies; Tor the stop
page OF tariff privileges TO the grca
aggregated interests; for a program
which will Withdraw protection from
ell interests that sell abroad cheape
than at home; ia short they shoul
be for fairness and honesty in the tariff
as against the graft which, ia tn
sugar, the lead. the carbon, the WOODEN