The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1910-07-28

tariff commission in the Payne law and
the subsequent appropriation for its use
represents an immense advance in the d.
rection of a strictly Duslness-llke ana
thoroughly accurate tarlH
In All tnat L have said l do not want |
to be understood as by any means apol-
Ogizing for the Payne law. On the con-
tary, / make this statement, and do so
so deliberately, that the Payne law as a
whole with whatever imperfections IL
may have, is the best tarin law that has
been enacted under our old system OF
making tariffs. II is an Immense i'm
provement over the Dingley law, which,
in its turn. was an immense Improvement
over thaWllson law. Thisls perhaps hard-
ly giving the Dingley law all the credit
it deserves, because the Wilson law was
undoubtedly the worst tariff law ever
enacted at any time by any party l
have been attempting simply TO point out
what II seem to me are defects IN the OLD
system of making tarins and 10 submit
that the Republican party has provided
the remedy
The only difference in the Republican
party has been as to the kind of COM
mission that ought to be provided. some
very able men have advocated commits
sion with power to report at any time 10
Congress, recommending. specific changes
in existing schedules; men equally aole
have opposed this on the ground that IL
would be an interference with the cOnsti-
tutional powers of the house OF repre-
sentatives to originate all revenue legls-
lation, and, further, that such system
would tend to create a continued and
injurious tariff agitation.
1t would seem on the whole that, GER
tainly for the time being, the provision
which has been adopted is a happy COM
promise. Certain it is that the present
commission can not interfere with the
constitutional privileges of Congress, De-
cause 1t has no power to recommend spe-
citic changes of duties. 1t is equally GER
/ tain that it will not cause continued
| tariff agitation hpPaUSa
which it shall gather will be called for
only when, in the judgment OF the preSl-
dent or congress, readjustment OF tarin
schedules, either in whole or in part,
ought to be undertaken.
If there has been some difference OF
opinion in the Republican party on this
subject, there has been none In the
Democratic party. The Democratic lead
ers are unanimously opposed to any kind
of commission whatever. They say
that congress has all the information 1t
needs now and will have no occasion to
rely upon outside sources. The dlfter-
ence between us is that we want addi-
tional light they do not. To them
knowledge and scientific information are
worse than supertluous. They would re-
wise the whole tariff at once, and quickly,
with no more definite information than
they now possess, and with no attempt
whatever to remedy the acknowledged
defects of the old system.
In short, the Democratic program is to
proceed to an immediate revision of the
whole tariff, ignoring facts, and by lower
ing the increasing duties as the case may
! be, place it upon what they call rev
! enue basis. A tariff for revenue! Think
! what a field this opens for log-rolling
! and chicanery. Think of the opportunity
offered for powerful interests to obtain
! under the guise of revenue duties, duties
! which would be, in effect, prohibitory
] A process in which all the weak and
! small industries would be left out in the
! cold business turned upside down, and
! countless wage-workers thrown out or
! employment.
! The inevitable result would be to give
protection to some industries and free
! trade to others, a thing so palpably un-
| just as to shock the sense of fairness OF
! the American people.
! The Payne law has been attacked upon
two principal grounds. First that 1t is
| not in compliance with the pledges of the
! Republican platform; and. second, that II
! is responsible for the increase in the cost
I to the consumer of most articles OF daily
/ use.
/ Its opponents say that the platform
promised a revision downward of the
duties of the Dingley law; that instead
! upward, and that this upward revision Is
! responsible for the increased cost or
/ living.
To bolster up their argument they have
| flooded the country with a mass OF mis-
! leading figures, false statements and
| bombastic vituperatiOn, so monumental
! that it Is no wonder that the people are
| bewildered and hardly know which way
! to turn to learn the truth.
am not disposed to bubble about just
| what our platform meant. / am aware
that there are some men VINO nave denied
| that there was any promise, either eX-
! press or implied, that duties should be
| revised downward. There is no question
! that this is true so far as articles OF
luxury are concerned, upon which duties
were properly increased for the purpose
- gtIf NNTifh n
out pausing to argue the point, l am
frank to say that l interpreted the plat
form to mean that duties on articles of
daily use should be revised downward
/ wherever possible.
In other words, whenever it appeared
! that the duty upon any article was more
than sufficient to equalize the labor cost
here and abroad, and l believe that there
were a good many of them in the Ding
ley law, that that duty should be de-
creased. In short, l believe that the
majority of the American people inter-
preted and rightly interpreted, the plat
form to mean that duties upon articles
of daily use should be revised in the main
downward. This has been done. The
plain fact is that the Payne law, so far
as articles of necessity and not of luxury
are concerned, is sweeping revision
downward of the duties of the Dingley
law.
We can prove this to the satisfaction of
any one who is willing to listen and
wants to know the truth, and we shall do
so in this campaign in spite of all the
Misrepresentation of our opponents.
The one best way to find out what the
| Payne law does is to read it. This would
seem to be a self-evident proposition,
and vet [ think it is a fair guess that 80
out of every 100 of those who are crlti-
cising the law most severely have never
so much as looked at it. 1t is the easiest
thing in the world to criticise what others
have done. The most violent critic is
| he Uyh knows
he is criticising. Pessimism is the state
of mind usually of those who do least for
their fellow-men. The lazy man or the
drone, he who reaps without labor what
others have sown, is almost invariably a
It is not to this class of persons that we
appeal. Our appeal is to the American
citizen who earns his livelihood by his
brains or the sweat of his brow.
I have not the time, nor is this the
place, to enter into a detailed discussion
of all the schedules of the tariff.
The speaker then referred briefly to the
tariff schedules.
Can any fair-minded man deny that the
present tariff law is a sweeping reduction
upon articles of daily use in the life of
the American people? If such there be
who desires further proof let him exam
inc the list of articles consumed last year
in this country and investigate how they
are affected by the various changes OF
duty. He will find that the value of those
articles was something less than SIX bill
lion dollars; that upon about eight hun
dred and seventy odd million the duties
were increased but he will find upon fur
ther investigation that six hundred odd
million of these were articles of luxury
pure and simple, so that upon only two
hundred and seventy million dollars
worth of these articles the duties were
increased. On the other hand, the duties
upon more than five billion dollars worth
of goods consumed by the American pco-
pie were decreased. In other words, the
decreases, as compared with the in,
creases, judged by this standard, are
more than fifteen to one.
If he investigates further he will alsC
find that for the first time in many years
more than half of all the importationE
that came into this country came in fire,
of duty. In other words, under the pres
ent tariff law the free list more thar