The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1910-10-14


ton. 1t is revenue producer. w
put increased duties ON wines, liquors
and like luxuries. We have mo apollo
gies to make for it. These are tn,
articles on which the revenues o.
the government should be raised a.
far as possible.
The law provides for Free Trad,
with the Philippine Islands. and has
proven a wonderful incentive to th,
prosperity of the people of those is
lands.
1t provides a maximum and mini
mum Tariff which has opened up the
ports of the world to our people on
even terms with other countries. We
have enjoyed no such fair trade as
this during the last nine years, and
was becoming In tolerable. The law
has justified itself in this single
provision.
Under the rules of the TIVE houses
any bill changing the REVENUE laws
in a single item is open to amend
ment in either house which may
change every paragraph of any ex-
listing revenue law. Because of this,
1t is impossible to bring in bill max
Ing change in single item with
out o.ening up the whole question
of revenue. There has been much dis
cussion between members Of the two
houses looking for a remedy. | sug-
gested to several leading members OF
the two houses year ago last sum-
mer the feasibility of a joint rule
which should allow the passage
through both houses of separate bills,
each amending a single paragraph, or
a single schedule, of the general Tar
iff, cutting off all amendments to any
other paragraph or schedule. was
gratified with the general CONSENSUS o
opinion that such rule could be. and
ought TO be, adopted; that there
should be thereafter no general re-
vision of the Tariff, but amendments
involving at the most, single sched-
ule to be passed upon separately. !
am much gratified that President Taft
on a suggestion of his own, endorees
the same proposition and hope, with
his powerful influence, such a rule
may be adopted and Tariff changes
may become possible withoue involv-
ing the whole system, disheartening
and disrupting all the business inter
ests of the country.
II is an easy thing to say that the
present Tariff law has increased the
cost OF living, but it is impossible to
prove 1t. 1t is almost impossible to
ind single item on which the Tar
m was increased on which the price |
has shown a similar increase. On
he other hand, on nearly every item |
where We reduced the Tariff or where |
We left it the same as under the old |
aw, they have maintained the old |
)rice and sometimes increased 1t. |
We reduced the Tariff on lumber
rom 81 to s1.25, and lumber brings
he same old price. We increased |
he duty on shingles from 30 to 80
'ents, and the price of shingles has
been lower ever since the act became
/ law. | could enumerate these items
~ the hour, showing that the price
las no relation whatever to the
'hanges in the Tariff act
The increase in price OF articles
S worldwide. No other country dur
ng the past three or four years has
zone through a general Tariff re-
'ision, and Yet every country shows
he same increase on the necessities
II life. In our own country We have
omitted over nine millions of immi-
rants in the last ten years, most
u whom have stayed with us. Our
population has increased Certainly
ixteen millions. There are that mal.
more consumers. But our production
I necessities has not been greaterses-
ecially in the provision line. We
re not sending SO much abroad there
; demand for 1t here at home. The
'orld price has increased We re-
uced the Tariff on nearly every ar
Icle OF meat, and on many articles
the provision line. and yet the
rice has gone up. !
Prices were low under the Wilson
Nv On 1861; the poclsetbook was
,wer With a Tariff sometimes
igher on various articles of provis-
'ns and necessaries Of life, prices
ere lower, but the farmer got less
what he sold. Careful comparison
'ads Of the value of farm products
March, 1896. and March 1910, shows
nat for ten bushels OF wheat, ten
ashels Of corn. twenty bushels OF
ATS, twenty bushels OF potatoes, a
M nd k<- 4