The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1909-09-18


that l was a tariff revisionist and
thought that the time had come for a
readJustment of the schedules. / pointed
out that II had been ten years prior 70
that time the Dingley bill had been
passed; that great changes had taken
place IN the conditions surrounding the
productions Of the farm, the factory,
and the mine. and tina: under the theory
OF protection in that time the rates Inn
posed in the Dingley bill in many in
stances might have become excessive;
that Is. might have been greater than
the difference between the cost of pro
duction abroad and the cost Of produc-
tion at home with sufficient allowance
for reasonable rate of profit to the
American producer.
Il said that the party was divided on
this issue. but that I'm my judgment the
opinion of the party was crystalIized
and would probably result in the near
future in an effort to make such re-
vision. 1 pointed out the difficulty that
there always was in a revision OF the
tariff. due to the threatened disturbance
of industries to be affected. and the sus-
pension of business in way which
made it unwise to have too many re-
visions.
his Stand on Tariff.
In the summer of 1907 my position on
the tariff was challenged and I then. en-
tered into a somewhat fuller discussion
of the matter. It was <cOntended by the
so-cslled stand patters' that rates be
yond the necessary measure Of protec-
ton were not Objectionable because be-
hind the tariff wall competition always
reduced the prices and thus saved the
consumer. But 7 pointed out in that
speech what seems TO me as true today
as Il then was. that the danger OF ex-
cessive rates was In the temptation they
created TO form monopOlies In the pro-
tected articles, and thus 70 take advan-
tage of the excessive rates by increasing
the prices, and therefore IN order 10
avoid such a danger u was wise at reg
ular intervals 70 examine the question
what the effect Of the rates had been
upon the industries IN this country and
whether the conditions with respect 10
the cost Of production here mad 50
the tariff ana to make lower rate truly
protective of the industry.
Object of Revision.
1T will be observed that the object Of
the revision under such a statement was
not TO destroy protected industries in
this country. but Il was to continue TO
protec. them where lower rates offered
a sufhc 'ent protection to prevent injury
by foreign competition. That was the
object of the revision as advocated by
me. and it was certainly the object Of
the revision as promised In the Repuo-
lican platform.
Il want TO make as clear as ] can
this proposition. because IN order 70 DC
tern1ine whether a bill Is "A compliance
with the terms OF that platform II. must
be understood what the, platform means.
A free trader Is opposed 10 any pro-
tectlve rate because he thinks That our
manufacturers. our farmers and our
miners ought to withstand the COMPETE
ton OF foreign manufacturers and min
ers and farmers. or else 20 out Of bust
ness and find something else more prof.
liable to do. Now, certainly the prom
ises Of the platform did not contem
plate the downward revision of the
tariff rates to such a point that any
Industry heretofore protected should be
injured. Hence those who contend that
the promise Of the platform was to re-
duce prices by letting in foreign COM
petition are contending for free trade,
and not for anything that they had the
right TO infer from the Republican plat
form.
Meant Long Study.
THE Ways and Means Committee Of
the House. with Mr.. Payne at its head,
spent a full year in the investigation
and assembling evidence in reference 10
the rates under the tariff, and devoted
an immense amount OF work to the
study Of the question where the tariff
rates could be reduced and where they
ought 10 be raised with view to main
tanning a reasona BILE protective rate
under the principles Of the platform Tor
every industry that deserved protection,
rHrNf ina
the question what was the actual cost
OF production and whether an industry
in this country could live under GER
tain rate and Withstand competition
from abroad. was question OF the ut
most difficulty in settling The manu-
facturers were prone TO eXaggerate the
injury which a reduction in the duty
would give and 20 magnify the amount
OF duty that was needed while the inn
porters. on the other hand. who were
interested In developing the importation
from foreign shores were quite likely 10
be equally biased on the other side.
Mr. Payne reported a bill-the Payne
tariff bill-which went TO the Senate and
was amended In the Senate by iucreas-
ing the duty on some things and de
creasing II on others.
Less Than Represented.
THE difference between the House bin
and the Senate bill was very much less
than the newspapers represented.
1T turns out upon examination that
the reductions in the Senate were about
equal 10 those I'm the House, though they
differed in character.
Now. there is nothing quite so d.
fclIt as the discussion Of a tariff bin,
for the reason that II covers 50 many
different Items The meaning Of the
terms and the percentages are most
difficult 20 understand. The passage
OF "a new bill especially where a change
IN the method OF assessing the duties
has been followed, presents an OppOr-
+ tuuitv for various modes and calcula-
tions OF the percentages Of increases
and decreases that Is really most mis-
leading or really throws no light al al
upon the changes made.
"Onc way Of stating what was done
Is 10 say what the facts shOw-that
under the Dinglsy law there We're 2u2i
items. This Included dutiable items
only. The Payne law leaves LILO OF
these items unchanged. There are de
creases ia 654 OF the items, an i'm
creases IN Z2C Of Jhc items Now. OF
course. that does not give a full pic
turc Of decreases to have been three
times those Of the increases.
Effect of Changes.
Now. attempts have been made 10
show what the real effect Of these
changes has been by comparing the
imports under the various schedules.
and assuming that the changes and