The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-09-18

sumer. But pointed out in that speech, what seems to me as true today as 1t was then, that the danger of excessive rates was in the temptation they created i to form monopolies in the protected ar | ticles and thus to take advantage of the l excessive rates by increasing the prices, l and therefore. in order to avoid such 1 danger, it was wise at regular intervals to examine the question what the effect | of the rates had been upon the industries | in this country and whether the condi- tions with respect to the cost of produc- tion here had so changed as to warrant a reduction in the. tariff, and to make a | lower rate truly protective of the in l dustry
 | Tt will be obvious that the object of the revision under such statement was not to destroy protected industries in this country, but it was to continue to protect them where lower rates offered a sufficient protection to prevent injury by foreign competition. That was the ob- ject of the revision, as advocated by me, and 1t was certainly the object of the re- vision as promised In the republican plat form.
 What Platform Means.
 q want to make as clear as I can this proposition, because, in order to determine whether a bill is a compliance | with the terms of that platform, it must be understood what the platform means A free trader is opposed to any pro- tectve rate, because he thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers and our min CTS ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. Now, certainly the promises of the platform did not contemplate the down. ward revision of the tariff rates to such a point that any industry heretofore pro tected should be injured. Hence, those who contend that the promise nf the platform was to reduce prices by letting in foreign competition are contending for a free trade and not for anything they had the right to infer from the republic i an platform
 | 'The ways and means committee of the 1 House, with MT Payne at its head, spent ] full year in the investigation, in as- i semblng evidence in reference to the ! rates under the tariff and devoted an inn | mense amount of work to the study of the ] question. where the tariff rates could be reduced, and where they ought to be raised, with view to maintaining a [ reasonable protective rate under the prin- cipes of the platform, for every indus | try that deserved protection. They found f that the determination of the question l what was the actual cost of production, 1 and whether an industry in this country ' could live under a certain rate and with 1 stand competition from abroad was a | question of the utmost difficulty in set 1 ting The manufacturers were prone to exagEerate the injury which a reduction ] in tho duty would give, and to magnify the amount of duty that was needed, while the importers on the other hand who int tod in, tha portation from foreign shores were quite likely to be equally biased on the other side.
 i Payne Tariff Bill
 MT. Payne reported a bill--the Payne tariff bill-whch went to the Senate and was amended in the Senate by increas- ing the duty on some things and decreas- irg it on others.
 The difference between the House bill and the Senate bill was very much less than the newspapers represented.
 Tt turns out upon examination that the reductions in the Senate were about equal to those in the House. though they differed in character Now there is noth- ing quite difficult as d discussion of n tariff bill for the reason that it may cover so many different items. The meaning of terms and the percentages are most difficult to understand. The passage of a new bill especially where a change in the method of assessing the duties has l been followed, presents an opportunity for various modes of deductions from and calculation of the percentages of increases and decreases that is really most mis. leading or really throws no light at all upon the Changes made.
 T "One way of stating what was done ie to say what the facts show-that under the Dingley law there were 2020 items This included dutiable items only The Payne law leaves 150 of these items un- changed. There are decreases in 654 of the items and increases in 220 of the items. Now, of course, that does not give full picture, but it does show the proportion of decreases to have been three times those of the increases
 Effect of Changes.
 Now. attempts were made to show what the real effect of those changes has been by comparing the imports under the vari
 ous schedules and assuming that the 1 changes and their importance alone in proportion to the importations. Nothing could be more unjust in a protective 4, tariff which also contains revenue pro- visions. Some of the tariff is made for the purpose of increasing the revenues by increasing importations which shall pay duty. Other items in the tariff are made for the purpose of reducing competition, that is, by reducing importations and, therefore, the question of the importance of the change in rate cannot, in the slightest degree, be determined by the amount of imports tAat take place. In order to determine the importance of the changes 1t Is much fairer to take the ar ticles on which the rates of duty have been reduced and those on which the rates of duty have been increased, and then determine from statistics how large part the articles upon which duties