The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1910-02-19


Sss5s THE IRFsyy
each: Bendernagel, the williamsburg
cashier. IL awaiting retrial; Heike, the
trust secretary, is under Indictment;
The sugar trust has made restitution to
the government Of $2,000.0oo of stolen
duties; refunds by the National Sugar
Reffning company and ArbuckIes makes
sthe total amount stolen from the rov-l;
ernment 33.4s4,3o4. a If,
f But not one Of the really "big men,
Of the sugar trust has been brought
to bar, much less convicted.
1.-THE sugar trust ms.de q scapegoa,
OF me- said Splitter, the trusts dock
superintendent after receiving his two
years sentence. II was sacrificed 70
that the big men might save their own
skins The government cried for a vic
tim, and the sugar trust answered by
sacrificing me ana four $1s-a-week
checkers. None OF us was guilty OF
any breach of the law, but somebod:
had to go to prison to save those
higher up.'". as ~
Nothing was expressly said in the
platform that this revision was to be
o. downward revision" fH
This declaration. made by President
Taft in his recent speech before the
New York Republican, club, reopens the
much mooted question: Did the Re-
publican party live up to its campaign
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 DO one Of
the methods resorted Ito by stump
Speakers to illustrate in a striking and
conclusive manner whether the Payne
:Aldrich- smoot bill is fulnllment of
Taft and the republican platform
promises. After giving arithmetlcal
demonstrations, Democratic orators
may further strengthen thei- views by
reading from speeches made by such
Republicans as LaFollette Of Wincon-
sin, Beveridge of Indiana, Clapp Of
Minnesota. Cummins 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 ut
terances of Mr.. Taft: ~ z
Before election: Cat Milwaukee, Wis.,
Sept, "a. 19os,) ut is my Judgment that
a revision Of the tariff in accordance
with the pledge Of the Republican plat
form will be. on the whole, d subs.
stantial revision downward
After election: Cat New York, Feb
IL, 1s10,) Nothing wa. expressly said
in the platform that this revision was
to be a downward revision!" i
& What the Republican National plat
form promised was .tarlff revision OF,
the basis of equalization Of the DIFF
ference between tho cost of production
Mt home and abroad, together with "a
reasonable profit to American indus
tries.' ,.sS s %5
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, "The one
substantial defect In compliance with
the promise of the platform was the
failure to reduce woolens.'' 3,.,l.
Woolens are Imported, too, par
ticularly to the poor. Under the head
sof woolens come blankets. rnsn's chill
oren's and women's underwear: cloth
from which is made mems and women'a
suits, hosiery, and great many other
textile products which are necessaries
Of life
Now what about the cotton shceduleo
Was the tariff on costons revised on
the basis Of equalization of the differ
ence in the cost Of production at home
and abroad? How could 1t have been
when Congress was not permitted to
know what the cost of production at
home and abroad was?
Aldrich and Payne did not apply the
principle Of equalization Of the diff
ference in cost Of production at4 home
and abroad, or make the least pretense
tof doing SO. Members of Congress
voted f5on the various chedules-were
forced to do 1t by the Republican lead
erswithout having the slightest idea
Of what the foreign cost Of production
cf the articles affected really was.
Yet the figures as to the cost Of
production were attainable. Here they
ara an IL, cotton nrof7 ,ict{oy. - { st y, II W