The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-09-18

tify those who answer this question in the
:. .'Mr. Tawney was downward revision
ist like myself. He is a low tariff noan
vote and an npss nl auch as this pro-
SCENTS itself. I am glad to speak in behalf
OF what he DID. not in defense of it, but
This is a government by majority Of
, sne people. People select some 400 men, as
Ders to constitute the lower house and "
through their Iegislatures and the varying
eighty or ninety million of people are re-
duced to one resultant force to take af-
By a's system I'm Of parties
parIieS. popular government would be ab-
on It mast teyr
productions on matters comparatively of
roud wcS IN order cf 20 fs 1 Sne
important principles at issue secures.
For Good of the Party.
No, / am not here to criticise those
views on the subject of the tariff were SO
strong and intense that they believed it
the tariff bill VIE E is Question for each
man to settle for himself. The question
party solidarity for accomplishing it's
chief purpose or whether the departure
is So extreme IN that n D he must F. oon A.
science abandon the party: All have. to
say is. in respect to Mr.. Tawneys action
bill. that Believed that the interests of
the country, the interests of the party,
ment Of certain things in revision Of the
tariff which had hoped for, in order TO
iieve to be much u S more IMPORTANT than the
REDUCTION Of rates in one or two schedules
Had Mr. Tawney voted against the
bill and had there been others Of the
house house suffcient in number to have de,
because of the absence Of a reduction of
rates in the wool schedule. when there
would have left the party rsy' in a condition
of generalization that would have pre-
and a fulfllment Of other promises.
THAT 9ss can 5e say T af fsnt tSa
Republican party o has 'a ever pa passed and
therefore the best tariff bill that has been
passed lat at all 7 do not feel that could
conscience than that Of signing the bill
OF course. If I had vetoed the bill. it
Republicans who may be called low tariff
Republicans and who think deeply on that
Democrats would have applauded and
SSt ition Il which the party would have
Need for Tariff Action.
But more than this, and waving con-
eouny have or bean pay ba %hef fs p bee
vetoed or been lost by q vote? It would
ing the next session. It would have sus-
pended the settlement of all our business
down to basis upon which prosperity
could proceed and Investment be made,
and it would have held up the coming of
prosperity to this country. These are the
reasons why I signed it.
But there are additional reasons why
the bill ought not to have been beaten. |
1t contained provisions of the utmost i'm |
portance to this country in dealing with |
foreign countries and in the supplying of |
a deficit which. under the Dingley bill, |
seemed inevitable.
I'VE have imposed an excise tax upon |
corporations. This. it is thought, will raise |
an income of twenty-six to thirty millions |
of dollars, will supply the deficit which |
otherwise might arise without it and will |
bring under federal supervision the cor |
poration of the country.
Then we finally have done justice to /
the Philippines. We have introduced free |
trade between the Philippines and the |
United States.
IT do not hesitate to repeat that I think |
1t would have been an unwise sacrifice of |
the business interests of the country. 1t |
would have been an unwise sacrifice of |
the solidarity, efficiency and promise per-
forming power of the party, to have pro-
tected into the next session a long dis |
cussion of the tariff and to have delayed |
or probably defeated the legislation needed (
in the improvement of our Interstate COM
merce regulation and in making more eff
Gent our antitrust law and the prosecu-
ton under it