The Clay City times. [volume] (Clay City, Ky.) 1901-current, 1909-10-07
UNTRUE TO PLEDGE
REPUBLICAN PARTY CONVICTED
OF UNFAiTHFuLNEss.
Assertion Of vice-Presldent Sherman
That Platform Promises Have Been
Kept Not Likely to Deceive
the People.

The Republican party fulfilled its
campaign pledges in passing the tariff
bill. Every schedule was prepared to
overcome the difference between the
cost of production at home and abroad.
From vice-President Sherman's
Kansas City Address.
Why did President Sherman
make this statement? He could
scarcely have thought Of anything to
say that would have sounded more
amazing to the west. And Mr.. Sher-
man cannot be either so ignorant OF
so Indifferent as to sentiment in this
section as not to have k9own just
how how, very !, amazing such : abatement
It must be assumedEG that
the vice-president is sincSk That he
believes the Republican paAy has
kept its pledges. But II he does so
believe. then he must hold that the
party did not promise downward re-
vision. And note, please. the posi-
ton in which such claim would
place him.
The country demanded tariff revi-
sion. Mr.. Taft responded to that SEN
timent, became it's chief exponent.
fostered 1t. crystallized it and was
nominated against strong field" of
reactionaries because of 1t. And be-
cause of It the party. through its con-
vention, promised revision. Now. does
MT. Sherman hold that this demand
g. rrlnl< fnr IN
ward revision? Does he claim that
the demand was merely for bit Of
tinkering, when the demand was
based on the excessive cost of living,
and the growth of the trusts In power
and arrogance and oppression?
A demand for revision based on
these causes was Enthusiastically a de-
mand for downward revision.
A promise of revision under these
circumstances was Enthusiastically
promise of downward revision.
The vice-president goes far when
he says that every schedule was pre-
pared to overcome the difference be-
tween the cost of production at home
and abroad" Even Aldrich does not
claim that the tariff bill was framed
on that basis. He has said that the
facts essential to make comparisons
were not available and generally
speaking he was right, for there was
no expert, non-partisan source OF gen.
eral information on this subject. as
there should be and as there would be
in the future II congress, in this same
tariff proceeding, had not refused to
provide for an expert tariff commits
sion. amply empowered to secure such
information. But even IN the in
stances in which absolutely trustwor-
thy comparisons between the cost of
domestic and foreign productions were
offered congress refused to use such
comparisons as basis of the ,sched-
ules affected.
Furthermore, Senator Dolliver Of
fered an amendment to the effect that
no duty should be higher than 100 per
cent. That amendment was rejected.
Think of II! Think OF any American
Industry not being willing TO accept
100 per cent. protection as sufficient
to enable II to compete with foreign
rivals! An industry that needs 100
per cent. or more protection should
be abandoned. There is nothing even
in the fundamental theory of protec-
ton to sustain an industry at such
cost to the people.
But the reason for the rejection Of
the DolIiver amendment was apparent
When the bill was completes. ~ than