The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1910-04-05
REPUBLICANS
OF INDIANA
Continued From Page One.)

lection needs TO fear. 1t was to- reduce
the Dingley tariff to meet changed con-
ditions and secure justice that we un-
dertook it's revision.
Like President Taft, 1 wanted free
iron ore, of which we have the greatest
deposits on earth and which the steel
trust chiefly controls. On iron ore no
protection is needed and I would not
stand for the duty that was proposed
and passed; and I cannot stand for ~
now.
| Like President Taft, wanted free
| lumber out of which the homes of the
people are built. I could not stand for
the duty proposed and passed on lum-
| Der. and I cannot stand for it now.
Like President Taft I wanted the
ancient wooden schedule reduced-a
schedule AZ years old, which, if ever
right, long since has served it's pur-
pose and which now gives to the WOOL
| en- trusts an unfair control Of our mar
when We tried to reduce it when the
| bill was passed, and I am against it
now.
ut is said that the law has made re-
auctions on articles entering into the
| consumption of the people to the value
of five billion dollars; if these articles
are made of such things as lumber,
agricultural implements. meat and food
products. petroleum and its products,
all of which we are the greatest ex-
porterc in til. world; steel rails and
coal, which we export; barbed wire,
manufactured and sold by an interna-
| tiHnal trust as complete as the inter
national t)l.1"co monopoly; yarns al. I
threads; the raw materials for tex
tiles, on which textiles when finished
for the peoples use, the tariff was in
creased sugar, which was not reduced
in fact, but only in pretense.
above all, could not stand for the
slaughter by the conference committee
commission which l wrote into the bill
that passed the senate; but all save
one of the democratic senators were
the enemies of any tariff commission
then. an dare its enemies now.
These are examples. / was against
them them am against them now
Compromise on purely economic details
is often wise; but compromise with
sheer injustice is always wrong.
The making of tariff. so long as
moderation and justice are followed is
an economic question, but the moment
excess and injustice are practiced the
making of tariff becomes also a NOR
al question.
1.-THE fight last year was a national
fight and who bore the battle? 1 want
the people of Indiana to know that all
the real fighting that was done for
justice in tariff schedules was done by
the republicans and not by the demo-
Gratis. The democrats voted against the
bill I voted against excess and for
ests and for the people. 1 voted and
fought for the genuine republicanism
of Lincoln, the founder of our faith;
the moral, the father of our tariff; of
Garfield the interpreter of our princi-
plesl of Mckinley, the apostle of pro-
lection; of Roosevelt, the soldier of
Righteousness.
Assuming that honest differences
of opinion exists-and they do gtv-
ing to them upright men who voted for
the law as whole, with credit for the
sincerity that / claim for myself, what
is the way out of the difficulty? Sure
ly not to turn the government over to
that erotesque band of politicians in
public life and who want to get into
public life; misnamed the democratic
party.
where then lies the plain remedy
In a tariff commission"
Senator Beverage, speaking of what
he designated "the so-called tariff bill"
said:
when / introduced the tariff COM
mission DILL three years ago / said it
had no friends in congress. Today
large majority of republicans are for
it and even one democrat has seen the
result. But at the beginning of the lasr
session it had only a few friends in
congress. Therefore I felt that it was
impossible to get a full fiedged tariff
commission enacted into law. and so
1 acted on the theory of getting the
best I could. Mine was fatal faith.
For what was the result? I drew the
provision authorizing the president to
appoint persons with full power to