The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1909-09-22
TAFT ON THE TARIFF

TAFT ON THE TARIFF
Those who thought President Taft.
on his western trip. would not have
the courage to declare his convictions
on the tariff question will have t, re-
wise thier thought. In his speech,
delivered at Winona, Minnesota. on
last Friday night. he spoke with the
frankness of Roosevelt. and no one
who heard him or has read his speech
can doubt where he stands as regards
the Aldrich- Payne tariff law.
He not only approves the law but.
goes further and says, it is the best
tariff law the republican party ever
passed. He contends the law repre-
sents a substantial downward revision.
He says that neither the republican
party, in its platform. nor he MS its
candidate, promised downward re-
vision of all the tariff schedules.
What was promised was general re-
vision downward and he insists that
this result is accomplished in the law
that was passed. He praises the re-
publicans t&ho voted for the bill but
hxs no ybrds of sympathy for the in
surgenks who voted against it. He
says IA effect that those republicans
whqf voted against the bill Abandoned
thlir party, by SO doing. He re-
Slites comparative figures to prove that
more reductions than increases were
made, that most Of the increases ap-
piled to luxuries and most of the de-
creases to necessities. He says that
ander the DINGHY law there we're 2024
dutiable items. The Payne law leaves
115O of these items unchanged. In
the new law there are 654 decreases
Of the items and 220 increases. He
shows there was substantial down.
ward revision on articles entering into
consuE7'icp of the country, which can
b termed necessaries. and states that
the proportion of ST. 0OO. 0O0, 600 repre-
senting the consumption Of articles to
which decreases applied, to less than
1900 900. 900 of articles of necessity to
which the increases applied. He
says. it was intended to be protec-
tive tariff and not free trade or for
revenue and adds eff the country de-
sfres free trade or . revenue tariff and
wishes the manufactures all over the
country to 90 out Of business and to
have cheaper prices at the. expense Of
the sacrifice of our manufacturing in
terests, then it ought to say SO and
put the democratic party in
power He says If he could have
had the law entirely to his suiting he
would have reduced the wooden sched-
ules and had lumber, on the free list,
but that congress thought otherwise
and he justifies signing the bill in the
following language: II believed the
interests Of the country, the interests
Of the party, required me to sacrifice
the accomplishments of certain things
Ii the revision Of the tariff which l
had hoped for. in order to maintain
party solidarity, which l believe to
be much more important than the re-
duction Of rates in one or two sched-
ules Of the tariff" He says eff he
had vetoed the bill. business would
have been disturbed and the republi-
{ can party demoralized. On the con-
j duct of certain republicans. VINO voted
against the bill he says: "And now
the question arises. What was the
duty Of a member of congress. who
believed in downward revision
greater than that which has been ac-
i eompIished, who thought that the wool
schedules ought to be reduced and that
perhaps there we're other respects in
which the bill could be improved?
Was it his duty to. because in his
judgment it did no. fully comply with
the promises Of the party platform as
he interpreted it. and indeed as I in.
terpreted it, to vote against the bill?''
I am here to justify those who answer
the question in the negative.
He brings out. in his speech. what
may be surprise to some and q disap-
pointmeut to others and that is the
u =
fifteen