New-York tribune., 1909-04-29

REAL OR NONTNAL RETISIONf
We have received from a correspondent III
PhlladeIphia. Mr. Richard Campion, letter eA-
pressing dissent from some Of our criticisms oil
the Senate's tariff bill. Mr.. Campion writes
Won ask. why. in order TO effect such silght
changes in our tariff system as are @ -, ~
the Senate bill the country should nave ~ ~oetzaI
.ailed on 10 undergo the disturbances to business
incident revision? Did the ReI aii .r+ P
..ronternnlate so inconseuuential readJustIheht
of tariff rates when it promised revision It IN
last national platform and demanded lht caIiIS ~
'of an extraordinary session OF congress " +ivfe 81
assertions based think on fase pIettiT pftFr1,,
lead me to ask where in the Republican pa'iOn 80 m
are there promised changes in our our 5Iaration tarII
TEN" and in what part of it is the oec-ai ''''
for "a readjustment of tariff rates -. ,+
The Republican party In ms t re-
form did declare "uneQuiVocaHE ~ tJi SESSION
vision of the tariff by a special stSsIoi
of Congress-" and as unequivocaIly uai ueclaien
the party's creed TO the tarlH' 10 -
creed every Republican Senator anu ~
resentative owes allegiance, and under Ing
command Of that platform declaration , Us 4i,+I,y
is now in extra session thoroughiy anu pbdIe
reviewing erooking-TeVlsing every I -
and paragraph in the tariff in order 10 1naNe "S
changes in rates and classification Ina u - i+raIf
made 10 the betterment of the tarlh law llSeiI ~
aI,5 for the benefit of the whole American pe"-
ple not forgetting for one instant thdt t lle -
ppI1b1ican marty not ONLY by its history but spe-
officially by its last platform Is poeI'u 10 .itta+
and maintain tariff that will give US t4S nc"
security against foreign competition TO Mli'.1 -.
maintain the high standard OF hVlng "i ,
wage earners of this country VINO are +, ens ~
direct benef1ciaries Of the proteciVe .Iee eIo+
Senator AdTiCh appears to ne ooeS 'Iis ~, ~ -,
for,7, mandate You condemn him. ana you toIl'
mend Senators Nelson Doliver and beNeIlueU
Why?
To the ouestions asked we are glad to give a
candid answer We suggested IN last SuhuaH
issue that inasmuch the Republican parry
had nle1ged itself TO revise the tariff. 1t shouiu
no
revision. and not be simply slightly ahereu
duplicate of the Dingley law. The Repubhclh
Dlatform of 1908 certainly promised reauJus'
n,eDt Of tariff rates. The opinion prevailed llaI
the Dinglev tariff had done its work, ana 'hd.
conditions in domestic industry and lhlerhtip'lial
commerce had changed enormously since 1897,
when the Dingley law went into erect IL Nouiu
have been extravagant to expect Iarlh " Ia"
,,assa5 then TO fit the altered conditions OF 1919
The makers of the Republican platform COLI
ce1ed the necessity of change and thought 'he
nronosad revision important enough TO demand
that Congress should be called together III eN-
+raordinarv session to undertake ii. If Con
e,reSs WAS not summoned in extra session 10 el-
feet some definite changes in our farin system
and TO readjust tariff rates. for What purpose
was ii summoned? The Republican party Ill
the last campaign did not promise to submit 1he
question whether the tariff should he revised OF
not to the incoming Congress, leaving [" IlaI
bodv 10 determine whether not the Dingley
rates were still good enough. If the convention
had had any idea last year that the Dngley bill
did NOT need material revision. but could he left
intact for another decade. II would not have
written into the platform this specific pledge OF
change:
The Republican party declares uneQuivocaly
for a revision of the tariff by a special session
of Congress Immediately following the inaugu-
liant and fnTT
steps already taken to this end in the work as
signed TO the appropriate committees OF Con
gress. which now investigating the opera
ton and effect Of existing schedules
Moreover. it is somewhat difficult to reconcile
orr CORRESPONDENTS nsistencc that the Repub-
Ican platform did not contemplate "A revision
which should be noticeable such with his ad-
mission that under the command of that plat
form Congress is now in session, thoroughly and
..natiently reviewing - overlooking - revising
every schedule and paragraph in the tariff IN
order to make any changes In rates and classl-
"fcation that can be made to the betterment OF
the tariff law itself and for the benefit of the
whole American people" According to his own
statement, changes in our tariff system and
establishments of schedules have been and are
It'll under way.
We believe as firmly as any else that diff
ference of cost of production here and abroad
should be compensated for in tariff duties, when
actual competition exists Yet there Is gen
eraI conviction that many of the Dingley sched-
ules give degree of protection exceeding the
cost differential. The country has undoubtedly
been led 10 think that unnecessary protection
would be dispensed with in accordance with Re
publican promises. The House bill made changes
in the tariff system Of consequence and thereby
marked a departure from the lines Of the Ding
ley law. The Senate bill is practical return TO
the Dingley law, and is, in our opinion, disap-
pointing to the country on both political and
economic grounds. We are glad TO call the at
tention Of our Philadelphia correspondent TO the
following comments this subject by The
Philadelphia Press Of April %:
1t will be a grave peril TO all protective inter
tariff now adopted proves unsatisfactory. If it
turns out TO be the Dingley tariff, slightly mod-
fed universal protest Will be heard. In 1897
the expert nee Of the Wilson tariff led to de-
mand for the Mckinley rates and more prOtec-
tion. No one last autumn was asking for more
protection. Protection the Republican party de-
rnanded, but modified to meet conditions
and adjusted to national needs. If this just
hope is disappointed tariff agitation will be
sumed, business will be disturbed and the ad-
Vances to a few manufactures proposed In the
Senate tariff bill it now stands will be dearly
purchased at the cost of another period of un-
certainty.
The Press is the leading protectionist news
paper in the strongest of the protectonist states
What it says represents, we believe, the present
feeling of all rational prOtectiOnists.
|