The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1909-09-18
TAFT DEFENDS PASSAGE OF TARIFF BILL;
SCORES REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST IT

termed necessities. for the proportion Is
5000, 100000 representing the COnSump-
ton Of articles to which decreases ap-
piled, to less than $780, 0O00o on articles
Of necessity to which the increases ap-
piled.
Now. the promise of the Republican
platform was not to revise everything
downward, and in the speeches which
have been taken as interpreting that
platform which I made in the campaign,
did rot promise that everything should
go downward What 1 promised was
there should be many decreases and
that in some things increases could be
found TO be necessary: bu that on the
whole l conceived that the cha nge OF
necessarily doWnward-and that I con-
tend. under the showing which / have
made, has been the result Of the Payne
bill.
Promises Kept
! Il didn't agree, nor did the Republican
party agree. that we would reduce rates
TO such a point as to reduce prices by
the Introduction Of foreign competition.
That Is what the free traders desire.
Thar is what the revenue tariff reform
ers desire. but that is not what the Re
publican platform promised. and it is
not what the Republican parry wished
10 bring abut- To repeat again with
what / opened this speech, the PROPOSE
duce rates so as TO maintain a difference
between the cost of production here, in
surfing a reasonable profit to the manu-
facturer on all articles produced In
this country, and the proposition TO re-
duce rates and prevent their being eX-
cessive was to avoid the opportunity for
monopolies and the suppression of com
petition 50 that excessive rates could
be taken advantage of TO force prices
up
MANY Contradictions
1T is entirely possible TO collect evil
dence TO attack almost any Of the sched-
ules. but one story is good until another
is told. and ! have heard no reason for
sustaining the contention that the crock
cry schedule is unduly high; and so with
respect to numerous details-items OF
not great importance upon what they
regarded as sufficient evidence. the com
mittee advanced the rates IN order to
save a business which was likely 20 be
DESTROYED.
II have never known a subject that
will evoke so much contradictory evil
dence as the question Of tariff rates and
the question OF cost OF production at
home and abroad. Take the subject
OF paDer- a committee was appointed
by Congress a year before the tariff
sittings began 70 determine what the
difference was between the cost of pro-
duction in Canada OF print paper and
the cost OF production here, and they
reported that they thought that a good
bill would be one imposing s. a ton on
paper, rssther than S.. the Dingley rate.
provided that Canada could be induced
10 take of the export duties and re-
move the other obstacles 70 the impor-
tation OF spruce wood IN this country
ont OF which wood pulp Is made.
An examination Of the evidence sat
isfied Mr. Payne-T believe Il satisfied
some, OF the Republican dissenters-that
3 unless some change was made IN the
Canadian restrictions upon the exports
OF wood 10 this country. was much too
low. and that 81 was only a fair meas
ere Of difference between the cost OF
production here and I'm Canada In other
words. the 3 found by the special COM
mtttee In the House was rather an in
vitatboU to Canada and the Canadian
print paper people 10 use their Infu-
ence with their government 20 remove
the wood restrictions by reducing the
duty on print paper against Canadian
print paper mills.
Diplomatic Suggestions.
IT was rather suggestion Of a din
iomatic nature than a positive statement
Of the difference in actual cost OF pro-
duction under existing conditions be-
tween Canada and the United States.
with respect 20 the wool schedule Z
agree thar # is too hign. and that II
. ought to have been reduced. and that
IL probably represents considerably
more than the difference between the
cost Of production abroad and the cost
Of production here. The difficulty about