New-York tribune., 1909-09-18

hides into the hands OF the meat packers IN Chl-
cago. In order to balance the reduction on
hides. however, there was a great reductoA In
shoes-from % to 10 per cent; on sole leatner
from 20 to : per cent; on harness from 40 to 10
per cent. So there was a reduction in the duty
on coal of 33 1-3 per cent All countervailing
duties removed from OIL naphtha gasolene
and its refined products. Lumber was reduced
from So TO 81 %, and these all on articles of
prime necessity.
It is said that there might have been more.
But there many business interests in the
| South, in Maine, along the border and especially
| in the Far Northwest which insisted that II
| would give great advantage to Canadian lun-
! her if the reduction were made more than 30
! cents. Mr.. PinchOt, the chief forester, thought
that 1t would tend TO make better lumber in
| lumber interests thought that 81 was none 100
much but the reduction was made and the
compromise effected.
IN FAVOR OF FREE LUMBER.
Personally 1 was in favor of free lumber be-
cause did not think that if the tariff taken
off there would be much suffering among tile
| lumber interests. In the controversy the House
and the Senate took middle course and who
can say they were not justified? With respect
TO the wool schedule, agree that it is Too high
and that IL 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 the wOoen schedule is that
there were two Contending factions early in the
history of Republican tariffs, to wit. wool growers
and the woollen manufacturers, and that finally
| many years ago they settled on basis by which
wool in the grease should haye IL cents pound,
and by which allowance should be made in the
shrinkage in the differential upon wool manu-
| features. The percentage of duty was very
heavy-quite beyond the difference in the cost
of production which was not then regarded as
| a necessary or proper limitation on protective
duties.
When il came to the question of reducing the
duty at this hearing in this tariff bill on wool.
Mr.. Payne, in the House. and Mr- Aldrich, in
| the Senate, found that in the Republican party
| the interests of the wool growers of the Far
West and the interests of the woolien manufact,
urers in the East and in other states, reflected
| through their representatives in Congress. was
/ sufficiently strong to defeat any attempt To
change the woolen tariff, and that had IL been
attempted II would have beaten the bill reported
| from either committee. I sorry this is so,
| and 1 could wish that it had been otherwise 1t
| is the one important defect in the present Payne
tariff bill and in the performance of the promise
| of the platform to reduce rates 10 a difference
| in the cost of production with reasonable profit
| 30 the manufacturer. That il will increase the
| price of woollen cloth or clothes I very much
| doubt. There have been increases by the natural
! increase IN the price of wool the world over
| as an agricultural product. but this was not due
TO the tariff. because the tariff was not changed.
| The increase would therefore have taken place
| whether the tariff would have been changed or
not The cost OF woollen cloths, behind the
| tariff wall, through the effect OF competition
has been greatly less than the duty, II added 10
! the price, would have made IT.
There is a complaint now by the Woouen
| clothiers and by the carded woollen people OF
| this woollen schedule. They have honored me
\ by asking in circulars sent out by them that
certain questions be put TO me in respect 10 II.
/ and asking why ! did not veto the Dill III view
/ of the fact that the wooen schedule was not
made in accord with the platform. ought 20
say IN respect TO this point that all OF them In
previous tariff bills were strictly in favor OF
maintaining the woollen schedule as IL was.
| The carded wOOllen people are finding that
carded woods losing their sales because they
| are going out OF style. People prefer worsteds.
The clothing people who are doing so much
circularizing were content to let the woollen
schedule remain as II was until the bill had
| passed the Senate. This was because they
| found that the price OF woollen cloth was going
M. and so they desiredto secure reduction in the
/ tariff which would enable them 20 get cheaper
material They themselves are protected by n
| large duty and / cannot with difference 20 them
| Ascribe their intebse interest only 10 deep
sympathy with the ultimate consumers, So
called
! NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PLATFORM.
But as I have already said am quite willing
1 20 admit that allowing the woollen schedule 70
/ remain where il is. is probably not a compliance
with the terms OF the platform as / interpret II
and it is generally understood
| On the whole, however. 7 am bound to say that
I think the Payne tariff bin is the best tariff bill
/ that the Republican party has ever passed.
| that In IL the party has conceded the necessity
| for following the changed conditions and ad-
iusting tariff rates accordingly. This is sub
| stantial achievement in the direction OF lower
| tariffs and downward revision. and II ought 20
| be accepted as such.
Critics Of the bill utterly ignore the very tre-
| mendous cuts that have been made in the iron
schedule. which heretofore has been subject TO
| criticism in all taTif bills. From Iron ore,
which was cut 75 per cent, 20 all the other items
| as low as 20 per cent. with an average of
| something like 40 pr 80 per cent. that schedule
| has been reduced SO that the danger OF ncreas-
| ing prices through a monopoly Of the business
| is very much lessened. and that was the chief
purpose Of revising the tariff downward under
| Republican protective principles. The severe
critics of the bill pass this reduction In the
metal schedule with sneer and say that the
cut did lot hurt the iron interests OF the country.
| We'll, OF course II did not hurt them 1t was
| not expected TO hurt them. II was expected
| only to reduce excessive rates so that business
! should be conducted at a profit. and the very
| character Of the criticisms is an ndica-
ton of the general injustice OF the attitude of
those who make them. assuming that il was
the promise of the Republican party to hurt the
industries OF the country by the reductions
| which they were tOsmake I'm the tariff. whereas
| IL expressly indicated plainly as possible in
| the platform that all Of the industries were to
| be protected against injury by foreign competi-
| tion, and the promise only went TO the reduction
| OF excessive rates beyond what was necessary
| TO protect them
consumed in food, % per cent in clothing and -
per cent in rent and fuel has not been produced
| by the tariff. because the tariff has remained
/ the same While the Increases have gone on. II
| is due 20 the change of conditions the world
| over Living has Increased everywhere i'm cost
| in countries where there is free trade and i'm
/ countries where there is protecton-and that in
| crease has been chiefly seen in the cost of food
/ products. In other words, We have had to pay
more for the products OF the farmer. for meat
| for grain, for everything that enters into food
| Now certainly no will contend that pro-
| tectioh mas increased the cost OF food in this
! country when the fact is that we have been the
greatest exporters of food products I'm the world
! II is only that the demand has increased beyond
! the supply that farm lands have not been opened
! AS rapidly the population and the demand haq
| increased. ! am not saying that the tariff does
| not increase prices i'm clothing and in building
| and in other items that enter into the necessi-
ties OF life, but what / wish To emphasize is that
the recent increases in the of living i'm this
| country has not been due to the tariff We have
! a much higher standard of living in this coun-
! try than they have abroad and this among the