The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-26

Washington. March 26.-A heavy swind and storm did not have any ap- tpreciable effect on the attendance In the House of Representatives where {the tarin discussion was renewed The kbili was called up by Chairman Payne fammediately after the body convened eand the debate was opened by MT. un- derwood. of Alabama. who spoke at flength in opposition to the bill.
 Mr. Underwood spoke as follows:
 ''The consideration of the questions Involved in the bill now pending be- fore the House brings before us all the Flights and shadows of varying inten- isity Involved in the taxation of i'm kported commodities from the position iof the extreme prohibitive protection list to that of the free trader. In my ljudgment. with A deficit In the Treas Jury. estimated all the way from $lOO.- 100000 to S15O,OOO. 900. the most import ant question for us to consider at this time. is the raising of sufncient lrevenue to support the government. l believe that large majority Of the tpeople of the United States favor lsystem of taxation by duties levied on Imports of foreign merchandise. and That the country desires Congress to lcontinue this mode of raising reve- nue.
 "The urgent necessity for revis- s1on of the present tarin laws or the country Is apparent to all: In the first iplace, the present revenues are not suf- lficient to support the government: In tthe next place the development Of im- Iproved business methods and advances fin the processes of manufacture, due 10 Improved machinery, have made the taxes levied under the Dingley bill out of adjustment with the present neeos fof the business interests of the coun- try. In many instances, prohibitive to isuch. an extent. that theysnot only oo mot produce revenue, but are direct injury to the great productive interests iof the Nation. . "In the preparation of a bill. the diff tferences that exist between tne 'wo trreat parties is not the issue or pro ttection against free trade. but the true tissue Is that one desires to write }protectiye tariff that leans toward pro- 'hibition of imports and the other revenue tariff that favors fair conpe, tition. Although. we ocoRslonaiiy nnu a free trader within the ranks or the Democratic Party, the great rank anu f1le of the party do not favor the doc- Urine of free trade. There has never been A platform of a National conven- lion since the organization oi the Democratic Party that has advocateo free trade theories; they have away maintained the true position or tne
 
 enue There never has been .@' ,l hill enacted into law by the Democratic Party that has not favored the doctIIhe of a tariff for revenue as opposed to tariff levied along free traoe ines' such as the revenue laws or Srea' Britain The most distinctive Deh,o
 cratic tariff bill that was ever wrH- ~er on the statute books of this coun- . srv was the Walker tariff of 1s4S. ano' although the duties levied under thi 2 tarifY did not exceed a 30 per cent ao yalorem. they were levied on cohpe.- ftive articles, such as wool, cotton, iro" and steel: and sugar and conee' hon
 competitive articles. were piaceo on .ne free list. which clearly demonstrate That the Democratic Party in preparins ns tariff bills has favored duty rev esd for revenue and also stood TOT tne NncidentaI protection that might ariSe from the levying of such duty.
 The True Distinction
 .The true distinction between two great parties or this c]oun ] . '.nv mind, Is the difference between nrohibitive tariff that will raise some revenue to support the government put at the same time will prohibit the ith- 1 portatfon of as much foreign mer ! chandise from coming into the couh- try as Is possible and raise revenue ~ taIl. for although the Republican farlS ihaS repeateQly ldico NA'~e S-.O' -.
 ta r,fg tn nrotect the difference in cost of production at home and abroad. they have placed their duties so greatly ih Eexcess of this amount and In so many cases at prohibition rates, that we ar. tcomneIled to reach a conclusion tnat ttbeir tariff bills are written to prohio- l,t and not for the purpose of equaiiz- hng the difference of the cost or p,o- jduction; in fact. they are protecuhs fthe manufacturer in his profits as oe- clared in the last Republican platform . The Democratic party has always oe- clared for a tariff for revenue. .s iievied which allow some imports to en- Ter the country. would be in one sense Ia tariff for revenue. but I take 1t that tthe clear meaning of the declaration of tha marty in favor of a tarin Tor
 revenue means competitive tariff. that is a tariff that allows sufficient i'm Iports of every product made In tne
 limited States to be imported ron