The Washington times., 1911-08-27
THE PRESIDENTS DEFIANCE
TO THE INSURGENTS.

real feelings was short lived. No sooner
had he wrenched himself away from
the advisers who were at his elbow,
and squared himself to address an
audience of the plain people, than he
fairly bubbled with the real feeling
that was in him. 1t all came out at
once; and its quality is the more sug-
gestive, because his speech at HamiI'
ton,' Mass, last evening, was to be
very informal.
Mr.. Taft is shortly to go a-touring
in the progressive West. He must de-
fend his reciprocity pact, which is
fearfully unpopular there. He must
denounce the men who opposed it, and
who are supposed to be decidedly strong
there. He must defend his vetoes of
the other tariff measures, which are
extremely unpopular in that section.
And, finally, he must show why those
bills are bad, and why it is so i'm
portant to wait another year for get
ting about the same thing that they
would have given without the delay.
1t is not an easy task the President
has before him. His Hamilton speech
will make him trouble wherever he
goes. The parallel between present
conditions and those Immediately after
the passage of the Payne-Aldrich bill
is striking.
Soon after the Payne-Aldrich measure
passed, Mr.. Taft went to Massachu-
setts, and in a speech defended that
law, and declared his devout admira-
tion for the craftsmanship of Nelson
w. Aldrich.
Today, he goes to Massachusetts,
defends his tariff vetoes, and announces
his determined antagonism to othe only
clement in the Republican party that
has done anything to effect revision.
After the Payne bill passed, the
President went to Winona and lauded
it as "the best tariff bill ever enacted"
This year, again, he will go West,
and denounce the revision he has
vetoed. The parallel is still well-nigh
perfect.
Following the passage of the Payne
measure the President sent Vice Presi-
dent Sherran into Wisconsin TO or
ganize against La Toilette. He sent
Cannon to Kansas to lombard insur-
gency there.
Again the parallel is preserved, save
that this year the President will in
wade the West in his own person, in
stead of sending agents to speak for
him.
1t is perfectly obvious, in view of
the violent manner and uncomprom
ising tone of the Hamilton speech, that
the President intends TO renew the war
against the insurgents. He will destroy
them if he has the power to do so;
and that will be the purpose of his
speeches in the West.
Will he succeed?
Two years ago they feared his
power, they realized that they faced
struggle for their political lives.
They plunged into it, and the result
is history: insurgency got its vindi-
cation, and regularity got the crushing
defeat of 1910
Learning nothing and forgetting
nothing, the President is now to re-
peat the performance, right in the face
of a national campaign. He under
takes it, however, with far less chance
to succeed than he possessed two years
ago, for the country has far more
accurate set of opinions and vastly
better information about the tariff than
it had at that time.
The President is going to denounce
the insurgents and Democrats for pass
ing wool, cotton, and steel schedules
without waiting for information from
the tariff board.
Yet he signed, and Endorsed as "the
best tariff act ever passed. the
Payne -Aldrich measure, which repre-
sented no tariff board inquiry.
He denounces the woolen schedule as
indefensible; yet he has since vetoed
measure that was designed to miti'
gate its outrageous excesses.
He characterizes the cotton and other
schedules recently vetoed as ill-con-
sidered and imperfect, because there
had been no tariff board report on
them.
Yet he forced to passage, and joy
fully signed, the reciprocity pact which
was negotiated in secret without a
thought of having the tariff board pass
upon its provisions!
The President has made his bed, and
the Hamilton speech was the sign of
his willingness to lie in it. He will not
be able now to change lit. There was
strong impression, following the
vetoes of the wool and free list bills,
that he had purpose to pacify, con-
ciliate, and assuage the hostility. of
those Republicans who had differed