New-York tribune., 1909-04-09
PHILOSOPHERS At ODDS,

One of the most surprising developments Of
tbe debate over the Payne tariff bill has been
the inability Of former lights of the toDdenlt2
school in this country TO agree about lis lheTl'S
or demerits Among Democratic POLITICIANS Oh
that school 10 agreement was to be expected :
for the free trade politicians who were III ear
nest are now practically all dead or out OF poll
ties and the rest have adapted their views I"
meet what they consider changeu poItcal COLI
ditions OF the newspaper oracleS of 'fatlff re
form as tariff reform" understood in
tho bavdav Of the Mills Morrison Cleveland era.
..Tbe New York Times and The New York
Evening Post were foremost. They stood to-
perher preaching the doctrines of David \.
-ells and the Parsee Merchant But thel
stand together no longer.
We have called attention to some pecuilarltleS
in rbe attitude Of The Times" toward the
Payne bill. Probably others have also noted
them. for The Times said yesterday with par
donabIe pride: We have never received 50
many proofs Of acute attention TO the ar'cles
..on our editorial page devoted TO the tariff as
lin the last month" Those who have gwen
..acute attention TO The Tmes's" editorial
articles must be wondering not a little where
that able newspaper stands nowadays on the
tariff issue Take for instance, these two opln-
ions of the Payne bill. one given on March l6
and the other on April ?:
March l6-It 1.-THE Payne bill is more
reasonable bill than any that has ever orlgl-
mated with the party Of RTotect'oh M, Us lS the
DingIev bill. and, so far can now be judged
Il is a much better bill than was sent 20 the
Senate in 1883 on the basis of the tariff com
missions report of that year. Inc sig
nifcant and profoundly encouraging fact re-
mains that sound principles have been. IN d
recognized by q Republican committee, ana
will. We hope without Impairment be recoS
nized by Congress
April 2-It is not going TOO far to pronounce
the Payne bill dishonest because. prepared IN
performance of pledge to reduce duties II
has with care and cunning been drawn in such
way as to raise them. In this respect Its bad
eninence surpasses any previous tariff bill. II
Is more disappointing Of expectation than the
commission bill OF 1888 1t IS worse than the
Mckinley bill which brought down upon the
Republican party the resentment of the people
II adds new extortions to those practlsed under
the Dingley act
As completed by the Ways and Means Com
mittee The Times" thus gave the Payne bill an
Endorsement as being the best ever prepared
and at the same time the worst ever prepared
by the party Of protection. Most people have
considered the changes made in the measure
since it was reported materially improving
il. Not so The Times which said Yesterday
So far, the progress of the bill from the mo
mcnt the Ways and Means Committee took II
in hand to the present, has been a triumph OF
reaction. We hate to say it. but it has also
been 4 triumph Of treachery-
Was it a triumph of reaction 10 strike out
the duty on tea and the countervailng duty on
coffee. to secure free hides and lower duties on
lumber. TO carry to The free list coal and iron
ore and TO remove the countcrvaling duty on
oil: Against The Timess' latest picture of
reaction and treachery should be set this more
optimistic judgment from the columns of The
Evening Post:
Whatever shall happen to it in the Senate, the
bill will leave the House a measure embcdyinS
substantial concessions TO the cOuntrys de-
mand for a revision downward II the com
mittee's programme is, after all. amended on
FRIDAY. the changes are pretty sure TO be still
more downward
When Cobdente philosophers disagree so rad
icalIv about tariff bill. who can blame I'M
learned Democratic politicians for wondering
whether they ought TO he against il or for it: