The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-09-27
PRESIDENT TAFT IN KANSAS.

President 1aft S speech NJ Kansas
City on Monday evening was a note
worthy deliverance. In il he reasserted
his former statement that wool duties
are too high; this being practically the
same thing that he said in his Winona
speech, that the wooden tariff is inde-
fcnsible. And, following this declara-
ton, the President said that as soon as
be gets adequate information, prcsum-
ably from his Tariff Board, he will rec.
ommend reduction in the wooden du-
tics Throughout his Kansas tour the
Presidents speeches have been 20 the
effect that the tariff must be revised
and revised downward, and especially
that the wool duties must be reduced; /;
all this. however, only ON the report
Of the Tariff Board, 20 be made In
December. This is a complete confes-
sion of the unsatisfactory character of
the tariff revision of 1909; and when
head of his party, the man who expects
to be renominated for his present high
office takes this position, those who
hold that the present tariff law is good
and righ. are in opposition to him and
to be consistent il would not be pos
sible for them to support him for Pres
ident because beyond question the tar
iff issue will be the great issue of the
campaign next year; and those who
stand by the tariff revision of 1909 will
be outside of the President S position
altogether, as logical proposition. SO
that any Republican who wishes to
stand by the tariff revision OF two
years ago must in order to be consist
ent, oppose President Taft To sup
port him, and also to support the tariff
law, is a glaring inconsistency.
In his Kansas speech the President
also brought forward the marriage and
divorce question, as it has been said
he would do in the course of his itin-
erary. we adhere 10 the suggestion
heretofore made. that this is the speech
which he ought TO make, especially at
Reno. There is plenty of time for him
to make it there, and we trust that he
will do so, either by substitution for
the talk that he is scheduled to make
on irrigation at that place, or as an
addendum TO his irrigation talk there.
In his Kansas utterances on this
question the President was both pointed
and consistent He dwelt on the evil
Of increased divorce. and held that from
the point of the civil law the man and
woman entering into the marriage rela
tion should be held TO their contract.
And he pointed out the Inconsistency
of a citizen of the United States being
married in one State and unmarried in
another. 1t is undoubtedly a shameful
condition, as the President insisted and
we are encouraged to believe from his
conclusion, that he is coming round 60
the point of considering National action
on this question the only means Of get
ting uniformity. When he said, az he
is quoted as saying. I'VE ought to have
uniform law that makes sacred the
marriage tie. - that means nothing else
than National legislation on this sub
INNl- We SuONll tApCEt IUtItlOlc, W
find President Taft a firm supporter of
the proposition TO amend the constitu-
ton in this respect. so that Congress
should have jurisdiction over the whole
be invested with that jurisdiction; for,
that is the only way in which uniform
ity can be had. IL is hopeless to ask, or
10 expect, that the States will agree to
uniform marriage and divorce laws, be-
cause many years of earnest effort have
shown that no progress is possible in
that direction.
We see that in the New York legisla.
ture, Senator Roosevelt has proposed
a resolution looking toward the estab-
uniformly to the whote Nation. and his
proposition passed both branches of that
body. His proposal is, that Congress
shall take up and pass the resolution AS
an amendment to the constitution This
shows distinct movement in the right
direction, and directly in support of
President Taft s view. and of the need
of uniformity. We believe that the
more the matter is considered the
stronger the ease will be for an amend
ment to the constitution of the United
States giving 70 Congress complete con-
troll of the marriage and divorce ques-
tion The States might oppose it as an
infringement upon their present power,
but since that present power is so di-
vergently and uuwisely used, there
would be no real deprivation of any
substantial or valuable right in taking
from the States all control Of this sub.
iect; and this is what must be done TO
get uniformity in the laws governing
marriage and divorce.