New-York tribune., 1909-07-11
ISSrEs IN CONFERENCE

from one point Of view predictions of an
early. agreement On the tariff bill, now in con
ference. are entirely justifable- It is true that
the differences between the two houses are on
their face not very formidable. Senator Aldrich
is quoted as saying that fewer major questions
sre in controversy than in any preceding tariff
revision within his memory Certainly the diff
ferences at issue are less numerous and less
comprehensive than were those which occupied
the attention Of the conference committees
which gave final shape 10 the Mckinley and the
Dingley laws. They are vastly less troublesome
than those which prevented the conferrees on
the Wilson-Gorman bill from making any re
pert at all.
The two drafts are really furthest apart in
their administrative and special features. The
House bill contains plan for using maximum
and minimum schedules to meet trade discrlm-
nations on the parJ-of other nations. Il makes
the minimum rates the normal rates and ap-
plies the maximum rates only when retaliation
shall be found necessary. The Senate reversed
that method making the maximum rates the
normal rates and offering the minimum rates
as compensation TO other countries for giving
Us most favored nation treatment. These are
differences as TO details, not as to theory. The
Senate added 70 the naaKnuln-nninimum sec
ton a paragraph providing for the creation Of
what amounts to q permanent tariff corlmis-
sion. That is the best feature Of the Senate
measure. The one thing demonstrated above all
others bv the tariff revision OF 1909 is the need
Of BODY able TO furnish data which will en-
able Congress TO apply intelligently the principle
of taxation 10 which it is supposed 10 be com
rnitted The principle was undiSputed this
year. having been clearly stated in the last Re
publican national platform, but the facts needed
for guidance were lamentaby lacking. The
House Of Representatives cannot well do less
than accept the Senates provision for tariff
board. It might wisely so further and insist on
giving the board q more definite and permanent
status and functions comparable 10 those Of the
Interstate Commerce Commission. Each house
has presented its own scheme of special taxa
ton 10 supplement rhe customs revenues. Il
Is & choice between the inheritance tax and the
corporation tax. But there is little entagonisn
between the houses on the special tax question
The Presidents influence will determine what
form the special tax takes. The House and
The Senate are also apart On drawbacks, and the
Senate will try 10 get the lower branch to ap-
prove the creation Of q special customs court
Here are many important differences TO be set
tied quite apart from the schedules. Yet none
Of them offers great difficulties
II may similarly be argued that the differ
ences between the rates Of the House bill and
those Of the Senate bill are not in themselves
serious. Judging by percentages alone, il is true
that the rates IN the two bills are, as q whole,
pretty close together. But such differences as
there are in rates have more than arithrnet
ical and a material significance. It may be II
little practical consequence In itself whether
iron ore comes in free or Is taxed at 20 cents
q ton, whether hides are put on the free list
again or are made dutiable at 10 or even at
10 per cent al relore9. But the more impor
tant reductions in the House bill represent 3
policy and cannot be surrendered or conpro-
missed without modifying that policy. They rep
resent a first step toward more liberal and
rational application Of the protective theory.
The Senate's bill represents inaction and re-
action There is. therefore on the rates In 4
number Of the schedules moral issue between
the House and the Senate OF more consequence
than the rates themselves. How quickly that
issue can De disposed of it is difficult to tell.