New-York tribune., 1909-02-17
FOR 4 TARIFF CONFUSION.

,,,,,o holdfno of q national tariff commission
,-or+io, is sign of the times, for it un-
5o,b+odIy testifies To A change in the general
atfi,pde of the country toward tariff legislauoh-
So long as the tariff was bone or cohIeh1ioi'
in politics and one party was lighting 10 hiaii-
tain the principle Of protection whhe the otiei F
was fehtinr 70 demolish it. there was little
possibility OF enjoying the dement's OF an oL.
derlv and scientific arrangement or the tarln
scba5uIes The two parties were 80 aDsorbed
in vindicatinc or assailing a theory as TO make
tbam more Or less Indifferent TO details IN appi'
cation When the friends of protecuon "oh'
they were disposed 10 distribute protectlon IN
rough and ready manner. When the enemies OF
protection won. they did not hesitate 10 reduce
dutieS according TO the same crude melhou
4 favorite scheme of the Democratic free uao-
ers Of a generation ago was "a horizontal re- re-
duction'-tbat is, slicing 90 or 30 per cent Off
all duties without any regard whatever TO vary
ing conditions in the various industries affected
The rougb handling of the schedules in most
of +be revisions of the tariff made since the
wer led 10 political reactions at the expense
of the marty in power in Congress. The Repuh-
Hcans lost the House of Representatives III
1882. after the passage of tAe law of that year.
and again in 1890. after the passage OF the NC
Kinley law. The Democrats were swept froIi
power in 1894, after the passage Of the WILSON,
German law The Dingley revision IN lS9i
did not prove fatal 10 the Republicans in 1898.
But a foreign war had interviewed and new
issues had arisen. As it was, the Republican
majority In the House of Representatives was
greatly reduced Shrewd politicians IN the
House have come TO fear a revision or the
tariff up or down. because it has so ofteh
meant a change in party control 10 you
want us 10 vote ourselves out OF our seats:
they ask. with an eye on recent history They
realize--as the country is beginning TO realize
that the old-fashioned sort of revision was
crude haphazard and irritating.
1t would be better for Congress ana betrer
for the country if the tariff question were taken
as far as possible out of party politics. Inc
great majority of the voters now favor a con-
tinuance Of the protective system. We are not
likely to have the free trade issue raised again
in its odfous sectional form. But the great ma
joritv of the voters want protection applied as
eouitably and scientifically as possible. They
want it applied by persons who can see both
sides Of every question and can balance the al
vantages and disadvantages Of a particular rate,
Judging it not alone. but factor In general
scheme Of protection. An expert permanent
commission making investigations Of its own,
mastering the cost sof production here and
abroad and capable of measuring the effect of
duty on our industry and commerce could sug-
gest changes in the tariff far more advantage
ouslv than the members of two committees OF
Congress working together only one year out Of
every two and also engaged, while together. with
n great variety OF other legislative problems.
1t is, Of course, neither possible nor desirable 10
diveSt Congress Of the fnal power in making
tariff rates. But the Ways and Means Committee
of the House and the Finance Committee Of the
Senate should be glad to lean upon a body OF
experts unvexed by the claims Of special inter
ests and special localities. and honestly trying 20
apply the protective principle broadly and for
the greatest GOOD Of the greatest number. The
manufacturers who ask for legislation creating
2 permanent commission to suggest changes
that legislation to be embodied in the next tariff
bill-have the public behind them. Their con-
vention is welcome, as testifying TO the wide
spread desire to adopt a modern method Of tariff
making and drop an antiquated and politically
dangerous one.