The Glenwood post., 1910-03-19

from personal prejudice, which I fear
from the expressions in your article,
controlled your present attitude. you
will find, | am confident that the sched-
ules of the bill that are most bitterly
attacked outside of Colorado are those
in which the people of our state were
most vitally interested in having the
Dingley rates maintained. | refer es-
pecially to the duties on ores, on sugar,
and on wool. You will. | am sure, if
you will make such an examination of
the bill, reach the conclusion that. with
the possible exception of the repeal of
the duty on hides, all the agricultural
and mineral products of Colorado are
afforded adequate and just protection
by its provisions.
I The republican party did not promise
to reduce all duties. It promised a re.
vision of the Dingley tariff law along
protective lines, which was fairly con-
strued to mean reduction of any duties
that were found to be excessive and
the imposition of new duties where
such were shown to be necessary.
Every tariff law ever enacted has nee
essarily involved some compromises.
The constitution of the United States
could never have been adopted if the
thirteen colonies had not been willing
to compromise some of their differences.
From that time to the present com
promises of some features have been
found nece 'sary in all important legis
lation for country of such vast area,
with such varied resources, and with
the conflicting interests of our differ
cnt sections and our people. The
Payne tariff law is no exception to that
general rule. On the whole. however,
IN unbiased examination of its provis-
/ ions cannot fail to satisfy you that it
is a compliance with the pledges of the
| tepublican national platform.
You will ascertain, if you will make
the examination, that in the revision
there were S74 changes made in duties,
654 of those were reductions and 220
were increases in duties heretofore pre-
vailing. The increases were almost ex.
clusively confined to luxuries and were
made for the purpose of securing much
needed additional revenue for the ma
tional government. There were few
| ~ Al
were upon luxuries. | have mentioned
two of them in this letter-the duties
on lead and tungsten ores. The in
creases were only made, as in the cases
just cited, where it was shown that
new duty was necessary to afford ade-
Quate protection to some industry.
A recapitulation of the results of the
revision will demonstrate that the
Payne act lowered the duty on articles
whose yearly consumption in this coun.
try amounts in value to SIS, 900, ,OOO, 900.
yearly consumption amounts to $780,
100000, about two thirds of which were
luxuries. The net result, then, is that
the duties were lowered on articles of
the value of $4,000, 100000 against an
increase of duties on articles of the
value of $3.50, 900, 900, including neces-
saries to the value of about $27O,0OO,-
900.
I submit for your candid considera
ton that this shows revision down
ward and compliance with republican
pledges.
I have written this letter in, the hope
that you will not permit yourself to be
carried away from republican moor
ings by unreasonable prejudice. If yor
will stop to consider, you will recollec;
that the Mckinley bill had to meet
similar criticism as is now being direct
; ed against the Payne bill. Wilton
Mckinley, after the passage of tho
! Mckinley bill, was as roundly denounc
ed as any of the present leaders of tn.
republican party He was retired from
| congress. The country had not suffi
cient opportunity to familiarize h~elf
, with the provisions Of the bill befor'
u CONTINUED on Last Page)