The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-03-28
UNDERWOOD SHOWS
 UP TARIFF ERRORS
Strong Argument Is Presented
 Against Protection
REVISION IS NECESSARY
Congressman Says That the Treasury Deficit Can Be Overcome by Re- ducing Expenditures, Levy
 Ing Taxes, Reducing Tariff.

Washington, March 27.-(Special.) )-The following address was delivered by Con- gressman Oscar W. Underwood in the House, during the past week, urging the necessity of tariff revision, due principally to the demand for raising revenue for government expenses:
 The consideration of the questions in volved in the bill now pending before the House brings before us all the lights and shadows of varying intensity involved in the taxation of imported commodities from the position of the extreme prohibi- tive protectionist to that of the free trader In my judgment, with a deficit in the treasury estimated all the way from s10o,OOO.OoO to s15O,OOo,OOO, the most inn portant question for us to consider at this time is the raising of sufficient rev. enue to support the government l be- lieve that a large majority of the people Of the United States favor a system of taxation by duties levied on imports of foreign merchandise, and that the coun- try desires Congress to continue his-mode of raising revenue.
 The urgent necessity for @ revision of the present tarir laws of the country is apparent to alli in the first place. the present revenues are not sufficient to sup port the governmentj in the next place, the development of improved business methods and advances in the processes of manufacture, due to improved machin- cry. have made the taxe- levied under the Dingley bill out of adjustment with the present needs of the business interests of the country. In many instances, pro- hibitive to such an extent, that they not only do not produce revenue, but are a direct injury to the great productive in terests of the nation.
 The True Issue.
 In the preparation of a bill the differ ences that exist between the two great parties is not the issue of protection against free trade but the true issue is that one desires to write a protective tariff that leans toward prohibition of im ports and the other a revenue tariff that favors fair competition. Although, we occasionally find a free trader within the ranks of the democratic party, the great rank and file of the party do not favor the doctrine of free trade. There has never been platform of a nationa eep-e vention since the organization of IT.. dem ocratic party that has advoc ted free trade theories; they have als, avs main- tained the true position of tIe party was in favor of a tariff for ~5venue. There never has been a tariff pill enacted into law by the democratic p1rty that has not favored the doctrine O a tariff for rev. enue as opposed to tariff levied along free trade lines such as the revenue laws of Great Britain. The most distinctive democratic tariff b.n that was ever writ ten on the statut5 books of this country was the Walker tariff of 1S46, and, all though the edties levied under this tariff did not exc eed 30 per cent ad valorem they were levied on competitive articles such az wool, cotton, iron and steel; and sugar and coffee, on-competitive articles were placed on the free list which clear 1y demonstrates that the democratic party il preparing its tariff bills has favored a duty levied for revenue and also stood for the incidental protection that might arise from the levying of such a duty.
 Party Differences.
 The true distinction between the two great parties of this country to my mind is the difference between a prohibitive tariff bill and a competitive tariff bill; the republican party favors tariff that will raise some revenue to support the gov ernment but at the same time will pro- hibit the importation of as much foreign merchandise from coming into the coun- try as is possible and raise revenue at