The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-09-20
PRESIDENT ,TAFT'S
TARIFF SPEECH


 TARIFF SPEECH
 Before starting on his tour, Presi- kent Taft promised to deal with the l4ariff question, when he reached the Middle West, the home of most of the Is1nsurgents'. who. voted against what bhe calls the Payne tariff bill but which fehould be called the Aldrich bill, for funder the Rhode Island Senator's Imanagement, oyer 800 changes were Imade in the bill as it5 left the House. fTAe President fulfilled his promise at EWinona, Minn., in the district of Rep lresentative Tawney who is under se- fyere criticism from his constituents fsor having supported the Aldrich tariff fbill qtse is g. rather significant fact fthat theuPresident's audience greeted This Statements with but "a small Eehow of enthusiasm" The more inn iportant of those statements were, in Esubstance: rs.
 That tariff revision downward was needed: because the Dingley rates knight have become greater. than the Edifrerences between the cost of produc- Etion abroad and here.
 That ''the danger of excessive rates Ewas in the temptation they created to Fform rnonopolies in the protected ar Eticles.p which would allow unneces- earily high prices, this being exactly what has occurred.
 That the object of tariff revision was SFto continue protection at lower rates. ksuficient1 however, to prevent foreign fcompetition-a rank absurdity, for E ed competition would induce the mo- Inopolies to reduce their prices.
 That the new tariff makes "a sub f etantial downward revision on articles sentering into general consumption" !" kwhich assertion is contradicted by the Eeubsequent statement in the same fepeecn that the high cost of living <has not been produced by the tariff" E-therefore, cannot be and is not re- Rduced by it. E.sssA
 That the wool schedule "is toos high { and ought to have been. reduced, z be kcause it represents :: %stseensiderably kuaore. than the difference in the cost kpf production here and abroad, but fcould not be reduced because the wool Ierowers and the woolen manufactur- fers combined against reduction. The EPresident had evidently forgotten this fstatement when he afterward declared Ian substance that the tariff had no Iehare in advancing the cost of living. lI4apses of memory are really neces- keary to arguments in support of the Thew tariff.
 That the new tariff ''is the best that 1.-the Republican party ever passed ,'' (which is slightly true, for it does make la few reductions, but they were made Enot by choice but by compulsion and Enoncededl only after most determined Eresistance.
 That there are reductions in the iron Fechedule, made ''to reduce excessive knates." AS MT. Carnegie had said that 1.-the iron and steel industry needed nc Eprotection at all but was able to com tpete in foreign markets, the retention fof any duties at all is simply afford. Idng an opportunity of exacting higher fprices than such as would give "a req Esonable profit %t
 That while 'not saying that the 1tarfff does not increase prices in cloth kdng and in building and in other items Lthat enter into the necessities of life,
 
 living has not been due to thef tariff. , In other words, while the tariff in creases the cost of clothing, rents ant fssother items" the tariff does not in
 crease the cost of living. Possibly, tn, i freader may be able to harmonize thu two assertions-the writer cannot.
 That the Republican members O Congress who voted against the new tariff, should not be criticized, becaus
 s.it is question for each man to set tie for 1fmself."e This really should have debarred the President from crit dcizing the wool schedule, for each o those who supported it, was settlin, the question for himself and his dis
 trict. and made his action effectiv through the '1og rolling" process.
 That the interest of the Republican party solidarity was ''much more i'm
 portant than the reduction of rates il
 one or two schedules Evidently tn
 President is. more partisan than ha,
 been supposed, for in balancing part,
 welfare against the peoples interes
 he openly gives preference to the for
 mer.
 That "the inquisitorial provisions
 of the corporate income tax ..'wil
 bring under Federal supervision mor
 or less all the corporations of tn
 country, and will supply t'tl1e mean of obtaining supervision over corporat
 methods"
 That "the legislation needed in tn snlprovement of our interstate com
 merce regulation and in making rnor
 ehicient our antitrust law is needle
 ssto clinch the Roosevelt policies b
 zxhich corporatioua and those in con