New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1910-10-26

downward revision of those rates that |
might induce competition to enter this |
country, and might relieve the ultimate
consumer from some part of the
burden that he bore Both the great I
political parties in their platforms
declared for a downward revision of |
the tariff schedules. Possibly the
platform did not expressly
declare that the revision should be
downward, but by implication and by
the words of the President himself,
the people were given to understand,
and did understand, that if entrusted
to power the majority party would |
revise the tariff and revise it down
ward. The tariff pledge given by
the majority party was not redeemed
and we must dissent from Mr..
Taft when he said it was the
best tariff bill ever enacted. I do
desire to call your attention tonight,
however, to the rather falacious and
speciOus argument advanced by the
President in favor of the claim of
downward revision. His argument in
short is this. The old law contained
2024 items, items. OF those 1924 items
Il5O have not been changed. The
rates have not been changed. 220 or
Whereabouts have been raised and 654
have been reduced. think my figures
are right. 654, then, out of over 1000
have been reduced and only 220 have
been raised. Overlooking the 1850
that have not been changed at all, he
calls it tariff reduction downward.
What difference it makes. Here is
an article with tax upon it of l00%:
reduce the tax to 99M. You still have
all the tax that is necessary to support
a combination and to shut out any
competition that may exist. Still it
counts as one reduction, while on the
other hand take tax of 20%, and
raise it to 500 and you have only one
increase, and according to the argu-
ment of the President one would
balance the other.
Two years after that first campaign
there was another issue raised in this
district. The tariff question apparent
ly for a time was settled, because both
of the political parties protested in
their platforms to revise the tariff and
to revise it downward. I had then
served in Congress seven months and
came back here and told the people of
Cannon and Cannonism. There was
much [ did not learn, am willing to
admit, but a few things I did observe.
It was perfectly clear that a small
coterie of men absolutely controlled
| the Lower House and a smaller coterle
of men absolutely controlled the Upper
| House, or Senate. At the head of one
stood Mr.. Cannon, at the head of the
other Mr.. Aldrich. It is true they
we're not able to force thru Congress
| all legislation they might desire, but
| they had power enough to stife legis-
lation tha4 they did not wish to pass.
| Whatever their motives may have
been [ submit that the policies they
carried out were un-Democratic, they
we're un-Republican, and they we're
| un-American. There is no good
reason why such power should be
placed in the hands of half a dozen
gentlemen. If they are to control
legislation in this country then save
the useless expense of sending repre-
sentatives from the nearly 400 districts
in this country
Now, 7 know Mr.. Cannon and in
many ways I respect him. He is in
his 10Th year. When he shall have
completed his present year in Congress
on the 4th day of March, he will have
served in that body So years and eight
years as it's speaker. He has by his
experience and his own endeavor OBJ
tanned great deal of knowledge and
many of us who are younger have
much to learn from him. There are
some things that he has, however, that
| it is better that we who are younger
should not learn. have never abused
the man and I do not intend to do SO
| today. It almost makes me sick to
hear people revile Cannon and talk
about deposing Cannon, as though
that is all there is to do. Why, if we
are to retain the same system in our
government that we have had for a
number of years, if we are to keep
Cannonism, better keep Cannon. I
would rather today go back to Con-
gress and vote for Joseph Cannon as
Speaker of the next House of Repre-
sentatives than to 60 back there and
vote for the man that Cannon desig-
/ mates. I heard an orator once say in
the House of Representatives, giving
4 oynroce;op RI come sl1nb th0nphf as