Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1909-10-07
UNTRUE TO PLEDGE
REPUBLICAN, PARTY CONVICTED
OF uNFAlTHFULNEss.
Assertion of vice-President Sherman
That Platform Promises Have Been
Kept Not Likely to Deceive
Iaila. 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 Vice-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-
mar cannot be either so ignorant or
SO Indifferent as to sentiment in this
section as not to have known just
how very amazing such a statement
would be.
1t must be assumed, of course, that
the vice-president is sincere; that he
believes the Republican party has
kept its pledges. But if he does so
believe, then he must hold that the
party did not promise downward re-
vision. And note, please, the posi-
tion in which such a claim would
place him.
The country demanded tariff revi-
sion. Mr.. Taft responded to that SEN
timent, became it's chief exponent,
fostered it. crystallized it and was
nominated against a strong field of
reactionaries because of it. And be-
cause of it the party, through its con-
vention, promised revision. Now, does
Mr.. Sherman hold that this demand
for revision was a demand for up
ward revision? Does he claim that
the demand was merely for a 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 a
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 if congress, in this same
tariff proceeding, had not refused to
provide for an expert tariff commits
sion, amply empowered to secure such
information. But ever 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 a basis Of the SEIZED
ules affected.
Furthermore, Senator Dolliver of.
fered an amendment to the effect that
no duty should be higher than 100 per
cent. That amendment vas rejected,
Think of it! Think of any American
industry not being willing to accept
100 per cent. protection as sufficient
to enable it to compete with foreign
rivals! An industry that needs 10C
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 Dolliver amendment was apparent
when the bill was completed. for Their