The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1911-09-28
TAFT HE
WOULD NOW VETO
THE Tl4RIFF BILLS

needed evidence had Dccn gathered
ana impartial conclusions drawn as
to the facts upon which sucn revision
could be properly made.
Upon the failure of tne dill for
a statutory board, and in an earnest
effort to enable Congress 70 act x;,l.
accurate knowledge on Schedule x.
and, indeed, on Schedule l=on cot
ton manufacturers issued an oraer
10 the Tariff Board alrea appGiaj-
ed to continue the necessary invosii.
cations OF these schedules and to. re-
port upon the same on December !
next. In order TO make as good a
substitute for the statutory Tariff
Board as ] could, ! added two com
potent Democrats to the board. The
board consists OF two professors of
economies of the highest standing
one at Yale and one at the University
of Virginia, a former Assistant Sec
rotary OF the Treasury in charge of
customs, the proprietor and editor
OF an agricultural and stock raising
newspaper-an authority on these
subjects-and a former Democratic
Congressman of great ability and en-
%perience from Georgia.
Although many of the Democrats
had assisted in the support of the
(, ~ i =, ~ r., ,.iyf ID~n,l -,l1 .,-l I,,1
advocated such a means OF securing
accurate information in respect Of
the probable operation OF tnr propos-
ed revision, the House at once began
to make a record for political pur-
poses by passing three tariff bills.
the wool bill, the ffee-llst bill, and
the cotton bill. They gave no pub
lie hearings of any kind on either of
these bills and they presented no
satisfactory information upon which
the effect OF any of them upon the in
(ustries involved could be judged.
Their Investigations may have been
sufficient to satisfy the conscience of
La tar~iff-reyenue man who believes in
any reduction, however great. of en-
listing duties, but for one pledged as
] am TO maintain a tariff high enough
to enable existing industries to live,
the case is different.
Changes in the Bill.
The wool bill proposed a revenue
duty Of 30 per cent upon raw wool
instead of IL cents a pound, a reduc-
,ion of considerably more than 80
per cent OF the present duty, and an
average duty OF so per cen OH WOOL
en- cloth and manufactures. This was
avowedly a tariff for revenue and
was not drawn for the purpose of
protecting the industries. 1t passed
the House and Went TO the Senate,
where an insurgent Republican Sem
ator proposed a substitute in which
the duty on wool of the first class
was fixed at 40 per cent, and of a sec
cent, and the average percentage on
the wooden manufactures vas made
60 per cent ad valorem. 1t was
claimed by its author to be a protec-
tiCn bill. 1t was submitted to
q committee, no evidence was ever
taken in regard to it, and it was
evolved from the independent inves-
tigation of a single Senator. y ma
jolitv OF the insurgents and the
Democrats in the Senate c%ompromis-
ed on Il bill which made the tan on
raw wool, first class. 50 per cent;
second class, 10 per cent; and the
average duty on woolens, 80 per
cent. The bill. against the vote of
nearly all OF the regular Republicans
and some insurgent Republicans,
passed the Senate and was sent to
conference, where a bill was agreed
upon in which the duty was % per
cent on raw wool, and an average Of
40 per cent on woolens. This bill
had the effect Of raising the duty on
carpet woods, as hved in the Senate.
10 per cent, and as fixed in the House
9 per cent. Here was the first case
presented to me. There was moth
ing in the record in either the House
or Senate from which | could obtain
any information as to the effect of
this bill upon the wool and wooden
il &ustry of this country. l submit
that the history of its making shows
no principle whatever in the bill eX-
cept as compromise between two op-
posing principles for the purpose OF
passing the bill, without any indica-
ticn as to its effect on the industry
to which it applies.
Lower Than Wilson Duties.
This bill reduced the duty or
woolens to an average of 40 pei
cent, with a duty on the raw-ma.
terial wool of 30 per cent. The Will.
son bill. passed in 1894, had reduc.
ed the duty to so per cent, with nc
duty on the raw wool at all, a much