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

| ers, aid that finally many years ago
/ they settled on A basis by which woOl
/ in the grease should have II cents
/ pound, and cy which allowance should
/ be made in the shrinkage in the dif-
/ ferenttal upon wool manufactures. The
| percentage of duty was very heavy
/ quite beyond the difference in the cost
/ of production. which was not then re
gaTded as necessary or proper limita-
! ton on protective duties.
] When IL came to the question Of re-
( ducing the duty at this hearing In this
/ tariff bill on wool, Mr.. Payne, IN the
| House. and Mr. Aldrich In the Senate
! interests Of the wool growers of tho
/ far West, and the interests OF the
| IN other States, reflected through their
| representatives In Congress, were suf-
| hciently strong to defeat any attempt
! to change the wooden tariff, and that
( had II been attempted IL would have
/ beaten the DILL reported from either
| committee
zone Important Defect"
y am sorry this IS so, and could
wish that Il had been otherwise Il is
/ the one important defect in the present
I Payne tariff bill and in the performance
! Of the promise of the platform to re-
/ duce rates to the difference In the cost
/ of production. with reasonable profit 10
/ the manufacturer That II viii Increase
! the price Of wooden cloth or clothes 1
very much doubt. There have been in
| creases by the natural increase IN the
price of wool the world over as an agri-
/ cultural product but this was not due
/ TO the tariff. because the tariff was not
changed, The increase would therefore
nave taken place whether the tariff
would have been changed or not The
cost OF wooden cloths, behind the tariff
/ wall, through the effect OF competition.
/ mas been greatly less than the duty, IL
added TO the price. would have made H.
There Is complaint now BY the
wooden clothiers. and by the carded
I FNNG-ra Il = -
] They have honored me by asking IN
/ circulars sent out by them that certain
questions be put TO cae In respect to IT,
and asking why ! do not veto the bin
| schedule was not made IN accord with
/ the platform.
Il ought TO say in respect to this
point that All Of them IN previous tariff
bills were strictly in favor of maintain
Z ing the wooden schedule as II was The
caroed wooden people are finding that
/ carded woods are losing their sales be-
| cause they are going out OF style Peo-
! pie prefer worstedS The clothing peO-
] pie who are doing so much cirCulariZinF
I we're cOntented to let the wooden sched-
! ule remain as II was until the bill had
! passed the Senate. This was because
1 they found that the price of wooden
/ cloth was going up. and so they desired
! 10 secure reduction IN the tariff which
Z would enable them to get cheaper ma
/ terial- They themselves are protected
! by large duty. and I cannot with
] utLtituGe 10 Jileu dScrlOe Iuelr intense
] interest only 10 a deep sympathy with
I the ultimate consumers. so called.
"The Best Ever"
But as I have already said, I am
quite willing TO admit that allowing the
/ wooden schedule to remain where 1t is is
/ probably not a compliance with the
1 terms Of tie platform. I interpret II.
! and as il Is generally understood
. "On the whole, however / am bound
/ 10 say tfat / think the Payne tariff bill
I Is the best tariff bill that the Republican
party has ever passed: that IN II the
4 party has conceded the necessity for
/ following the changed conditions AID
I tariff rates accordingly. This is a s.l.-
Stanual achievement in the directiO7 81
/ lower tariffs and downward revisit r.
and it ought To be accepted as such.
Critics Of the bill utterly ignore the
/ very tremendous cuts that have been
made I'm the iron schedule which mere
1 tOfOre has been subject to criticism i'm
AL tariff bills. From iron ore, which
was cut % per cent. 10 all the other
items as low as % per cent, win an
| average OF something like 40 or 80 per
/ cent that schedule has been reduced 80
/ through a monopoly of the busiB IS is
I very much lessened. and that va the
4 chief purpose Of revising the tariff down
ward under Republican. protective prin-
ciples.
Not Fault of Tariff.
1.-THE high cost Of living Of which 30
| per cent is consumed in food, % per cont
\ in clothing, and . pr cent IN rent and
fuel, has not been produced By the tar
/ in, because the tariff has remained the
I same, while the increases have gone en-.
1t is due TO the change OF conditions
I the world over Living has increased
/ everywhere I'm cost-in countries where
Z there is free trade and in countries
| where there is proIeCtiOn-and that in
J crease mas been chiefly seen in the cost
| Of food products.
! If the country desires free trade. and
/ the country desires revenue tariff and
/ wishes the manufactures all over the
] country TO 20 out Of business and TO
/ have cheaper prices at the expense OF
/ the sacrifice Of our manufacturing inter
[ ests- then "a ought 10 say so and ougrp
/ to put the Democratic party In power
[ II fl thinks that party can be trusted TO
/ carry cut any affirmative policy in
I favor or a revenue tariff.
/ Certainly in the discussions In the
/ Senate there was no great manifestation
/ on the part Of our Democratic friends i'm
I favor of reducing rates of necessities.
. They voted TO maintain the tariff rates
! on everything that came from their
/ particular section.
I IF we are 10 have free trade, certain
/ ~ IL cannot be had through the main
; tenanCe o. Republican majorities in the
T Senate and House, and a Republican
4 Administration.
/ And now the question arises What
/ was the duty of a member Of Congress
who believed in a downward revision
/ greater than that which mas been ac-
I COmDlished. who thought that the wool
! schedule ought to be reduced, anS that
PERHAPS there were other respects in
\ which the bill could he improved. Was
/ it his duty because that in his iudg-
/ ment IL did not fully comply with the
/ promises Of the party platform as he
| iuter1retcd it. and indeed as I had in
/ tcrpTeted II, TO vote against the blil2 1
am here To Justify those who answer
/ this~ question in the negative
/ Tawney's Views
MI Tawncy was downward re-
visionist like myself. lie is a low tartff
man. and he has been known to De such