The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1909-10-07
UNTRUE TO PLEDGE
REPUBLICAN PARTY CONVICTED
OF uNFAITHFULNESS.
Assertion Of Vicc.Presdent Sherman
That Platform Premises Have Been
Kept Not Likely to Deceive
the People

Tho Republican party fulfilled its
campaign pledges in passing the tariff
bill Every schedule was prepared 20
overcome the difference between the
cosl of production at home and abroad
From Vice. President Sherman's
Kansas City Address
WY did Nice.prcsldcnt Sherman
max" this statement? lie could
scarcely have thought Of anything to
say that would have sounded more
amazing to the west And Mr. Sher-
man cannot be either so ignorant or
so indifferent as to sentiment in this
section as not to have known just
how very amazing such a statement
would be.
It mast be assumed, Of course, that
the ,icc-prcsident is sincere; that he
believes the Republican party has
kept it's pledges But II he does so
believe. then he must hold that the
parry di1 not promise downward re-
vision And note, please, the posi-
ton in which such claim would
place him.
The country demanded tariff rcyl-
sion. MIR Taft responded to that sen.
tlment, became its chief exponent
iJstered II. crystallzed II and was
ominated against u strong field" Of
dictionaries because OF H. And be-
Huse of it the party, through It's con.
rrntlon. promised revision Now does
Mr. Sherman hold that this demand
for revision was n demand for mp.
ward revision Does he claim that
the demand was merely for a bit OF
rinkcrlng, when the demand was
based on tie excessive cost Of living,
and the growth of the trusts In power
and arrogance and oppression?
4 demand for revision based on
these causes was Enthusiastically a de-
mand for downward revision.
4 promise of revision under these
circumstances was Enthusiastically a
promise of downward revision.
The vice-president goes far when
he says that every schedule was pro
pared to overcome the difference be-
tween the cost of production at home
aud abroad" Even Aldricn does not
claim that the tarifi bill was framed
on that basis He has said that the
facts essential to make comparisons
we're not available and generally
speaking he was right, Cor there was
no expert, nun.partisan source OF gen.
cral information on this subject, as
there should be and as there would be
in the future II congress. In this same
tariff proceeding had not refused to
provide for all expert tariff commits
sion. amply empowered to secure such
Information But even In the in
stances in which absolutely trustwUr-
thy comparisons between the cost Of
domestic aud foreign productions were
offered congress refused TO use such
comparisons as basis of the scnod.
uIes affected
Furthermore, Senator Dolliyer OF
frred an amendment TO the effect that
no duty shodld be higher than 100 per
cent. That amendment was rejected,
Think OF &C. Think of any American
industry not being willing to accept
100 per cent protection as sufficient
to enable 1t 10 compete with foreign
rivals. An industry that needs 100
per cent. or more protection should
be abandoned There is nothing even
In the fundamental theory OF protec
t IN to sustain an industry az such
cost to the people.
But the reason for the rejection OF
the Dolliver amendment was apparent
when the bill was completed. for then
It was found that some articles in the
protected list carried duties OF 500 pei
cent.
Again, why did the vice-presideni
make such an astounding statement;
Kansas City Star.