The Taney County republican. (Forsyth, Mo.) 1895-1992, 1909-07-22
Washington Letter.

statute books within a few days, and
this new law, which will probably after
wards become known as the tariff oi
1909, will be full redemption of all
Republican pledges not only made in
the platform, but by candidates during
the campaign of last year. Even if
the so-called Aldrich bill as amended
| by the Senate were to be adopted
without any changes the new law would
show substantial reductions over the
present tariff, but the bill as it will
finally become law will undoub tedly
be compromise between the House
bill and the Senate bill, and will show
vely substantial reduction over the
Dingley law, not only in the number
of decreases in rate, but in the aver
age rate per cent of duties collected.
At the same time, it must be under
stood that the object of a tariff law is
first 10 raise revenue and that it is in
tended to obtain, if possible, an in
crease of revenue through the new
law. This will be gained by increase
of duty upon luxuries and perhaps
through increase of importations be-
cause of lower duties upon other
articles.
The claim has been made by certain
leaders in Congress, as we'll as many
Republican papers, that there has been
no tariff revision downward Such
statement is untrue, because even
were the Senate amendments adopted
the bill would still show material re-
duction over the present law. There
have been decreased made in some
what over four hundred articles, while
increases have been made in only about
one hundred articles, and these latter
largely luxuries. A reduction has been
made upon nearly every article of the
iron and steel schedule, and many of
Senate amendments were made be-
tween the House reductions and the
present Dingley rates for instance,
the House cut the 50 duty on lumber
to 81. while the Senate put it to $3.50;
the House cut the So duty on paper
to So, while the Senate put it to 81,
and SO on through large part of the
schedules. Even upon hosiery and
other articles upon which the duty
was increased by the House, the Sen
ate restored the present Dingley rates.
But because of the the fact that the
Senate increased the rates over the
House duties there has been a cry that
the revision has been upward and al
ready higher prices are talked of be-
cause of this increase Such higher
prices are not only not justifable, but
an absolute imposition upon the pub
lie, just as they were in 1890 after
the Mckinley law was passed. For
instance, we are told that boots and
shoes are going to be highest in price,
and yet there has been no increase of
duty on hides, even if the Senate rate
is adopted. We are told that there is
to be an immense increase in the price
of clothing, and yet there has been
no increase in the duty on woolens
and cotton goods, only change from
ad valorem to specific rates. We are
told that there is to be an increase in
building material, and yet there is an
absolute decrease of duty on lumber
and structural steel.
The public should fully understand
this point at once and not be imposed
upon by dealers who will raise their
prices, laying it all to an increase of
tariff duties. There has been an in
crease on champagne and diamonds and
other such luxuries, but these should
not effect the general consumer.
The Republican party has redeemed
its pledges for a revision of the tariff
as its platform said it would, and 1t has
revised downward as many of the
leaders promised during the campaign.
1t was not intended by any one that
the tariff should be revised downward
to such an extent as to lose its pro-
tective features. We are more than