The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1910-02-19
NO REVISION
DOWNWARD
TAFT NOW CLAIMS HIS PARTY
DID NOT PROMISE A LOWER
TARIFF DURING PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN.
BY Tav.

vision"
This declaration, made by President
Taft in his recent speech before the
New York Republican club, re-opens
the much-mooted question: Did the
Republican party live up to its cam
paign promises in revising the tariff?
Democrats accept the challenge with
pleasure, and will be pleased to make
the issue raised by President Taft the
leading one in the approaching con-
gressional campaigns. The use OF
blackboard and chalk may be one OF
the methods resorted to by stump
speakers to illustrate in striking and
conclusive manner whether the Payne
Aldrich-Smoot bill is fulfillment OF
Taft and the Republican platform
promises. After giving arithmetical
demonstrations, Democratic orators
may further strengthen their views by
reading from speeches made by such
Republicans as LaFollette of Wiscon-
sin, Beveridge of Indiana, Clapp of
Minnesota, Cummings and Dolliver OF
Iowa, and others. They declared
again and again that the tariff was
not being revised in accordance with
the promise made in the Republican
platform.
Mark the difference in these two
utterances of Mr.. Taft:
Before election: cat Milwaukee,
Wis, Sept. "a, 1909. ut is my judg-
ment that a revision of the tariff in
accordance with the pledge of the Re-
publican platform will be, On the
whole, a substantial revision down
ward"
After election: Cat New York. Feb.
II, 1910. Nothing was expressly
said in the platform that this revision
was to be a revision downward"
What the Republican national plat
form promised was tariff revision on
the basis of equalization of the diff
ference between the cost of produc-
ion at home and abroad, together with
a reasonable profit to American indus
tries
Was the tariff revised on this basis?
Taking woolens to begin with, Presi-
dent Taft himself admits failure. He
said in his New York speech, e one
substantial defect in compliance with
the promise of the platform was the
failure to reduce wOolens."
Woolens are important, too, particu-
| larly to the poor. Under the head of
woolens come blankets, mems, chill
from which is made mems and wo-
mems suits, hosiery, and a great
many other textile products which are
necessaries of life.
Now what about the cotton schedule?
Was the tariff on cottons revised on
the basis Of equalization of the diff
ference in the cost of production at
home and abroad?" How could it
have been when congress was not per-
mitted to know what the cost of pro-
duction at home and abroad was?
Aldrich and Payne did not apply the
| principle of equalization of the diff
! ferences in cost of production at home
and abroad, or make the least pre-
| tense of doing so. Members Of con-
gress voted on the various schedules
were forced to do it by the Repub-
! lican leaders-Without having the
| slightest idea of what the foreign cost
of production of the articles affected
really was.
Yet the figures as to the cost of pro-
duction were attainable. Here they
are as to cotton production:
The census of 1905 shows that the
wage of the average employee in the
cotton manufacturing industry in the
United States is 1904 year, $253S a
month, $685. a week, 81 cents a day.
/ This astonishingly low average is due
to the large number of children and
women, and foreigners, On the pay
rolls.
In England (from whence comes
| the greatest competition to our manu-
facturers of cotton) the annual wage
of the average employee is S233.28;
monthly wage, $19.45; weekly wage,
$4.4S: daily wage, "a cents. These
figures are from the official report OF
the British Board of Trade, based on
the census of 1906. The cost of living
is so much cheaper in Great Britain
that, according to former United States
Commissioner of Labor Carroll ID.
Wright, the British cotton mill en-
ploye can purchase more of the neces-
saries of life with his daily wage of
"A cents than the American mill work
er can with his 81 cents.
The average per cent of duty fixed
by the Payne-Aldrich-Smoo law is in
excess of 40 per cent. An attempt to
justify this amount of protection by
the actual difference in the cost of
production at home and abroad would
be ridiculous. Granting that foreign
goods have no cost whatever, the rates
III the present ldFlH law Ou CuLLOu
goods would still be excessive.
But the Republican platform also
provided for "a reasonable profit to
American industries" This brings up
the query: Must the American cot
ton manufacturers have the present
excessive protection on cotton goods
to meet competition"
The amount of profit enjoyed by the
beneficiaries of the cotton schedule is
the best answer to this question.
Here are a few of a multitude of
similar illustrations which could be
given:
The Bates Manufacturing Co., of
Lewiston, Me-, capitalized at s1,2OO,O00.
with surplus of $1,100,00O had net
earnings in 1907 amounting to 41.S7
per cent and declared a dividend OF
So per cent
The Pepperell Manufacturing Co., OF
Biddeford, Me-, has declared dividends
averaging "a per cent for the last nine