The Washington times., 1909-04-22
Sham ReUiSion
Of the Tariff
1Frnnr the independently

(Frou the independently
The controlling majority in Congress
does not intend to make real revision
of the tariff. Its purpose is substantially
to re-enact the present law, now tWeiNe
years old. with a few apparent reduc-
tions of little or no value to consumers
with a considerable number OF IN
creases, avowed or concealed; and with
the entire list subject to an increase OF
perhaps 20 per cent, so far as four-hfths
of the imports are concerned-for the
use of maximum rates, elther as pIO-
posed by the House, or In ACCORDANCE
with the plan which, II Is said, the sen
ate committee prefe rs' will increase the
ordinary duties.
The result of the special sessions 5
work can now be foreseen. We know
what the House has done; we nave tle
Senate committees bill, which probably
will be changed for the worse When &C
ton is taken concerning the rates that
were withheld from it; and the limits
within which the conference commit
tee will do it's work are already quite
clearly marked.
Aldrich Explanation Misleading.
MT. Aldricns explanation of the
changes made in his committees bill
was inadequate and misleading, as MIR.
Payne's description OF the original
House committees bill had been. Only
by careful examination Of each meas
ure have many of the Objectionable
features been brought to light
We do not refer, OF course, 10 such
changes in the Senate bill as the I'M I'M
position of a duty on iron ore ana the
restoration of substantially all the Dlhs-
lev rates on meat products, grain, ahu
vegetables, but to the erect or re-
classification and Of a substitution OF
craes IL aG x-9lnTpDn
fabrics and other goods.
As an example we point TO the repor !
of a merchants committee that one OF
these obscure changes increases the
duty by IS per cent. Again, a dealer in
cutlery publishes A table showing that
the Senate bin adds from ~ to 81 per
cent to the duties on razors. ,-.,.,,.,o,,
Mr.. Aldrich said that the substitution
of specific rates in the cotton goods
schedule had not increased the old ac
valorem rate. But Mr. Lodge, mem
published a stater ent to the contrary,
rejoicing that the change had been
made.
Setting Up a Straw Man.
| 1t is misleading TO compare the rates
| Of this bill with those of the House
bill. Comparison should be made with
the Dingley tariff, which Congress pro-
fesses to be revising.
For example, il is pointed out thai
/ the high rates of the House bill or
/ hosiery and gloves have been rejected
| by the Senate committee. But what
rates are recom1r ended in place OF
| them2 Simply thUse of the present
/ ringley law.
the makers of either bill that duties
on tea and coffee are not now proposed
! for both these commodities are nov
| on the free list. The Senate commit
tee may point with pride to its rejec
/ ton of the House bills duty on cocoa
/ but the average consumer does not
| forget that there is no duty on cocoa
/ in the present tariff
| As we look at the two bills, we arr
| tempted to guess that some of the as
/ tute revisers sought, by proposing sucf
new taxes as these, and the increases
\ lie attention from certai other part;
/ of the original bill. to 1raw the frs
/ of popular indignation, so to spea K, anC
/ then finally TO satisfy complaint Dy re
/ storing the provisions of the Dingley
/ law, at the same time quietly saving
| other chan ges-some open, some Oo
scured-whicn, from the nrst, they .9 nat
| determined to retain But the activity
| of ex-Congressman Littauer appears Il
| upset this theory, so far as II relate:
| 20 gloves
No Hope For Consumer
Why was a revision of the tariff un
dertaken? Was Il not in response to
demand from the people. who believed
| that the Dingley rates were too higf
and should be reduced? It has been ad
mitted by certain persons who wer'
| prominent in the construction OF tina
tariff that II was made so high IN or
der that there might be q margin 70
| reductions to be caused by treaties o.
| reciprocity. After these treaties ha,
been negotiated, the Senate would no
! accept them.
Did the people. ask last year. for ;
revision that would increase Dingle,
rates or even re-enact them? Did the
ask for the Payne bill, which, as Mr.
| Payne admitted, would increase -th
average rate from 44-16 TO 1912 per cent
/ Was an increase or re-enactInent o
the present tariff promised to them b,
Judge Taft and tie Republican party ?
| They have hoped that this t1-ri.f legis
latiOn would reduce the cost Of living
1.-THE index number obtained by one o
our great commercial agencies from tn
average prices ot groups of commodi
ties shows that the cost OF living 4
| higher now by 81 per cent than IL wa
| when the present tariff Jaw was enact
ed. A majority OF our people believ,
that this cost can be, and ought to be
| reduced by a revision downward of tn
tariff rates. Such a revision many o
them expected. They will be disappoint
| ed.