New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-08-04
LOGIC CONE ASTRAY.

DISPATCHES from Washington credit Senator
Bacon of Georgia. with an extraordinary 1eat
i'm logic He is said to have demonstrated that
on the l37 votes taken in the Senate on items
In the tariff schedules the Democratic Senators
did not in single instance vote for rate OF
duty properly classed as protective. II is also
reDorted that he could find no instance of Dem
ocratic Senator's voting for an increase of duty
on any article either over the rate prescribed in
existing law or in the tariff bill as it came from
the House of Representatives. II is only fair
10 the demonstration TO say that he did admit
numerous and robust exceptions 10 his first con-
clusion Those exceptions consisted OF cases In
which Democratic Senators voted for amend
.neEts offered by Republican Senators which,
while they were protective in the rates pro-
posed, were nevertheless reductions either on
'the rates in the existing law or on the rates
sin the House BILL
IL Democratic Senators voted for protective
rates under certain circumstances-on products
in which their constituencies were Interested
we do not see that much value can be attached
TO the demonstration that they failed 10 vote for
protective rates under other circumstances-on
products in which their constituencies were not
specially interested. From the point of view of
MANY OF Mr. RacOn's Southern colleagues. duties
can serve the purposes of protection without
being called protective. They can be politically
sterilized by being classed as duties for rev
enue." When the Senate voted 10 increase the
Dingley rate on pineapples about 100 per cent
the Dromio-like character Of such protective
non-prOtective rates was humOrously illustrated
in a colloquy between Senator Fletcher. Of
Florida and Senator Jones' of Washington. Mr..
Fletcher was arguing for a high duty on pine
apples because ii would bring in larger revenue.
1.-The Congressional Record" thus describes what
followed:
Mr. Jones-Is that the sole reason OF the
Senator's advocacy Of this increase?
Mr. Fletcher-No: / am taking IL up one step
at time. can take up that proposition. and
I say no one who is in favor of tariff for
revenue only would be justified in opposing this
amendment. But can take IL up on the other
proposition, and upon the ground Of protection
there is absolutely no ground whatever to stand
on in opposition 10 the amendment
Mr. Jones@ wondered whether that was the
position the Senator is taking. That is what /
wondering.
Mr. Fletcher am going 10 present my posi-
tion fairly and fully and discuss the matter from
every standpoint
Mr. Jones-I will say 10 the Senator that 1
assume might very likely be in favor of II;
but simply the ground Of revenue, might
not.
Mr. FIetcher-The Senator is a splendidly
equipped Senator in every respect. and shall be
glad 10 find myself in accord with him. and shall
feel honored by his support. / can substantiate.
as said. the claim here OF duty OF a half a
cent pound 10 the satisfaction absolutely OF
any fair minded man. whether he be tarin-for-
revenue man a protectionist.
Mr.. Clark. Of Wyoming-I Will ask the Sena-
tor which of those two grounds he takes in advo-
eating this amendment.
Mr.. Fletcher-As have stated. am going TO.
place the matter before the Senate in all its
phases far as can with absolute frankness
and fairness, upon its merits and each Sena-
tor can figure out for himself whether he votes
for il for one reason or for another reason
The amendment increasing the duty was car
ried II was submitted by u Democrat and got
nnmOpP1fie therefore
tutes further exception TO Mr. Bacon's excep-
tions and proves that Democrats did vote for
protective rate higher than any in the Dingley
law in the House bill or in the Senate bill as
reported, the increase being proposed not 10y
Republican but by a Democrat.
AS 10 the Senator's second contention, the
votes on iron ore hides and lumber easily demO-
ish il. Democratic Senators in large numbers
voted 10 restore duties on iron ore and hides
both on the free list I'm the House bill. They
also voted to increase the duty on lumber over
the rate carried in the House measure As we
have already pointed out. they voted 10 establish
a higher rate on pineapples than that in the
Dingley law or in either the House or the Sen
ate measure. Instances might be multiplied in
which Democratic Senators voted for a higher
rate OF duty than that in the Dingley law or I'm
the House bill No rule was followed, every
Democrat holding himself free 10 vote as he
pleased. and IL was due to Democratic votes
that many rates in the final draft of the law
will be higher than they would have been had
Democratic Senator's not failed TO support prop
ositiOns for reduced duties. Mr.. Bacon has ig
nored plain facts I'm trying 10 prove that the
Democrats in the Senate were consistent down
ward revisiOnists. They were not On many
crucial votes they turned the scale in favor of
the upward revision programme of the Finance
Committee