New-York tribune., 1910-08-13
SENATOR ALDRICH'S ANSWER.

SENATOR ALDRTCH'S ANSWER.
Senator Aldrch's reply TO the charges
that he used his position as chairman of
The Senate Committee on Finance to
increase the duty on manufactures OF
rubber in order TO swell the prohtS OF
the Intercontinental Rubber Company,
i'm which he is 4 stockh0lder. leaves his
accusers in an awkward predicament.
If exposes their recklesSness in drawing
unwarTanted conclusions from few
facts so combined as TO furnish basis
for a vast superstructure of error and
misrepresentation. Like so many of
our modern muckrakers, Mr.. Aldrich's
critics did not take the trouble to es
tabliSh logical sequence between
their premises and their differences.
They were satisfied to launch the ac-
cusations for what they were worth
without considering theii. inability to
bear n matter-of- fact analysis.
The gist of the charges was that Mr..
Aldrich. as chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee, secured an increase
of the duty on miscellaneous manufact-
ures Of rubber from 30 to 80 per cent
nd t'dIorent. and that this change re-
suited in increased dividends to the
rubber corporation in which the Sena-
tor from Rhode Island is financially in
terested. The Senator replies that the
corporation in which he is interested is
concerned only with the production OF
crude rubber in Mexico or elsewhere
outside the United States: that crude
rubber was on the free list under the
pingley law aud remains free under
the PAYNE law: that the increase of
duty on miscellaneous manufactures Of
rubber could rot possibly have bene
fitted the corporation, because it has no
connection. direct or Indirect. with any
domestic concern manufacturing rub
Der. and that. further. the increase was
made not to afford any additional pro
lection to the domestic rubber manu-
facturei-s. who make 9S1a per cent of
the rubber goods used in the United
States. but simply to eQualiZe the duties
on miscellaneous manufactures Of rub
Der with the duties on toys and other
goods which might be in whole or part
Of rubber. classified under other sched-
ules. The equalization was recon-
mended by the Board OF General Ap-
praiserS. which reported that many
suits had arisen because Of disputes as
10 classification, miscellaneous rubber
goods being taxed at 80 per cent Gd Ud-
lorem while other specified goods like
toys were taxed at 80 per cent. The
Senate committee made the equaliza-
Hof
cent rate for all rubber goods would
Lave entaiIed loss of about $500,o00
III revenue.
The answer is explicit as to the
charge that the change of rate WAS
made by Mr. Aldrich in his own private
interests. In order TO excuse them
selves his accusers will have to show
either that the Intercontinentat Rubber
Company is engaged in the manufacture
the sale of crude rubber here Is likely
to be increased by the imposition of a
revenue duty of 35 per cent instead of
80 per cent al JGIorCm on a portion of
the imports of manufactured rubber,
the entire importation amounting TO
only 11a per cent of the total domestic
consumption. The trouble seems to be
that the Senator's assailants jumped
10 the conclusion that the Intercon-
tinentaI Rubber Company was en-
gagged in domestic manufacture instead
of being a producer of crude rubber
outside the United States. They proba
rIy also assumed that it wanted a high
duty laid on rubber manufactures in
order to assure It control Of the home
market. and did not know that it pro
duced less than G per cent of the
worlds crude supply and could meet
only about 10 per cent of the American
demand if it sent all Its product here.
Such hasty and mistaken differences are
common among the half-informed SEN
sation hunters who make charges first
and look up the facts afterward. In
this instance the muckrakers appear TO
have been even more careless than usual
about embroiderin@ a few strains OF
fact into an elaborate fabric of fiction