Fort Mill times. [volume] (Fort Mill, S.C.) 1892-current, 1909-09-16
D0DGED TARIFF
That Is What Mr.. Bryan Says of
President Taft
IN SPECIAL ARTICLE

ence Between the Words Revised
and Reduced and Puts Tariff Out
rage Up to the Republican Party.
In letter to the Atlanta Journal
discussing the tariff. Mr.. Bryan says
the Republican platform was ambig-
uous, and the Democratic party plat
form specific. The Republicans In
their tariff plank used the word re
vised." The Democrats in their par
ty platform demanded a reduction
Of the rates. The word revision Is
subject to double Interpretation.
while only one construction can be
placed upon the word reduction"
The Democratic senators and rep
resentatives who had voted for the
imposition of duties had made a
mistake, and whether elected upon
or before the adoption OF the plat
form Of the party. ought to feel
bound by its declarations.
most heartily approve the reso-
luton offered by Senator Gore, OF
Oklahoma. proposing an investiga
ton as to the responsibility for the
high cost OF living.
Senator Gore Is entirely right.
The high tarir Republicans have
tried to shift the responsibility
from the manufacturers to the mer-
chants. This is important. and 1t
is only right that the public should
know the truth.
1t has been found by experience
that unless party formulates &
platform, its representatives in office
cannot agree upon a definite policy,
owing to the influence brought to
bear by favor-seeking corporations.
Even when there are platforms they
are misoonstrued unless they are
positive and specific. Sometimes
positive and specific platforms are
violated. but a positive and specific
platform is not apt to be violated,
and when they are violated the guilt
can be fixed and the guilty punish
cd.
The trouble with the Republican
platform of last fall was that 1t was
not specific and definite. The tariff
plank used the word revised" In
stead OF the word reduced" and
now Senator Aldrich and his crowd
construe 1t to mean an increase while
some of the western Republicans
insist 1t contemplated a decrease In
the rates.
Mr.. Taft lodged the question. So
far as / could learn from his speech
es the nearest he ever came to a
construction of the platform was to
declare, when in the west, that 1t
meant an honest revision" at one
time declaring that while some
schedules ought to be raised and
some lowered, the revision would
probably be downward.
The Republican national conven-
ton was at fault in accepting SO
indefinite, SO evasive and so decep-
tive word as revision" as a suf-
fcient promise. The voters ought to
have known that the friends OF the
tariff" will never give us any ma
terial reduction.
AS to the Democrats who voted
for the imposition of duties, they
have as rule defended their con-
duct on the ground that the duties
voted for were revenue duties. and
they have not been high duties.
Measured on an ad valorem basis,
the duty on lumber and on iron ore
are but small portion of the price.
| think that the Democrats who vot-
ed for the duty made a mistake.
The Democratic platform demand
ed free lumber, and l believe a plat
form is binding upon all who run
upon 1t. and 1t ought to have weight
with the members OF the party who
were elected before the platform was
adopted.
Those who voted for a duty on
lumber did SO. l presume. because OF
lumber interests In their districts
and States. but in doing so / think
they gave the preference TO few
owners of timber lands over those
who buy lumber. There Is no State
in the Union where the consumers
OF lumber do not outnumber the per-
sons who profit by the tariff on lum-
ber, and the man who votes for a
tariff on lumber votes to tax a ma
jority OF the people of his district
and State for the benefit of minor
ity of his constituents. But the
men who get the bentft of the tax
are more active In presenting their
demands than the consumers are
in presenting their protests, and as
long as this is true. the tax eaters
will have the advantage over the
tax payers.
If the taxpayers would take a
little more interest in the tariff
question and chastise the representa-
tives who. ignoring tho interests OF
the consumers. follow the advice
Of the protected interests. relief
would como sooner.
AS to the duty on iron ore, the
chief objection to 1t is not that Il
Is a high rate of duty. but that II
helps people who do not need help,
and gives an excuse for higher du.
ties on manufactured iron. The man
who owns a bed OF iron has such an
enormous advantage over the man
who owns farming land that IL I,