The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1910-09-14
ROOSEVELT AND THE TARIFF.

better than the last, and considerably
better than the one before the last"
declared Col. Roosevelt at Sioux Falls.
The last tariff was the Dingley law
of 1897. The one before the last was
the Wilson law of 1894, a democratic
measure, the democrats having got
the job of tariff making by reason of
popular dissatisfaction with the Nc
Kinley law of 1890. 1t follows that
when Col. Roosevelt said the Payne
law is better than the Dingley law he
meant precisely what President Taft
meant when he said the Payne law
is the best tariff law ever adopted.
But, sticking to the colonel's own
words, what legitimate excuse could
any republican have for voting to
leaving the Dingley law in the statute
books when a better law was offered
in it's place? The insurgent leaders
respond that even if the Payne law
was better than the Dingley law they
were justified in voting against it be-
cause it did not fulfill the party plat
form pledge. 1t did not, of course,
measure up absolutely to the principle
of protection as described in the plat
form. No tariff law ever will. But
it came closer to it than the Dingley
law, which the insurgents voted to
continue in effect. Moreover, there
ives the specific platform pledge to
revise the tariff at an extra session
Immediately following the Inaugural
ton. If insurgents votes had beaten
the Payne law that pledge-and it was
the only clear cut tariff promise in
the republican platform-would have
been violated to the complete shame
and humiliation of the party.
Nothing said by Col. Roosevelt
either in Sioux City or Sioux Falls
can be construed into justification of
republican votes against the Payne
tariff. Nor does the cOlOnel's tariff
attitude, so far as disclosed, differ in
any essential from that of President
Taft. There is not the slightest ques-
ton that Col. Roosevelt regarded the
D:..;.:ley tariff as very good law. He
let it remain in full effect through the
seven and a half years of his admin
istration, without a suggestion OF
change. And then at the close of his
term he suggested change to be car
ried out by his successor. But he did
not at that time insist on change
of system in tariff making, nor had he
provided any machinery for change.
The tariff was revised under the old
system.
The colonel now tells us in effect
that he has no criticism of the party
leaders who engineered the revision.
He says they are not better and no
worse than the rest of us, and that
their work was about as good as could
have been expected, and about as good
as others could do now under the
same system. But he declares that
the system is poor system. He
suggests by way of remedy what he
believes to be a better system. But
President Taft has beaten the colonel
could under the old system, President
Taft took long step, putting it mild
ly, toward providing machinery for
the system which the colonel is now
advocating. The step was made long
err by the late session of congress.
And now the president is proposing
to use the machinery, whether or not
it may be improved as suggested by
Roosevelt, to attain precisely the sort
of revision urged by the ex-president.
The outright insurgent contention on
the tariff is that President Taft was
responsible for the inefficiency of the
late tariff revision; that he was weak
in allowing Aldrich and Cannon to
dominate the situation, and that a
much better revision could have been
made if the views of the insurgents
had been allowed to dominate. Col
Roosevelt has delicately contradicted
all this, and virtually admitted that if
he had been in the executive chair he
could have done no better, under the
existing circumstances, than Taft was
able to do. If the insurgents can find
much comfort in the colonels tariff
attitude, so far as disclosed, they must
do considerable twisting.
Selfish Youth.