The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-09-21
Taft Tells Why He Vetoed the
Wool, Cotton and Free List Bills

OF such adequate information, and wit
the prospect of securing II in thre
months, it became my bounden dut
| 70 withhold my approval OF the bill
| What was the necessity for such grea
haste In passing. the bill at an extr,
| session called for another purpose
| The bill as 1t passed the house pro
| vided II should go into effect Jan.
1912. The bill as 1t passed the senat
| contained a similar provision. Whel
| the bill went into conference am in
| formed that the suggestion was mad,
that the date of Jan. 1, 1912, for II
| taking effect would furnish a stroni
| argument for delaying its passage un,
| TIL after Dec. /, when the tariff board
could report. The date of taking eff
feet was thereupon changed to Oct
! is, 1911. Such care was not takeH
! with the free-list bill or the cottor
bill, both of which were made to take
effect Jan. /, 1912.
Schedule * had been in force sc
| long and its percentages were so high
in many respects that I had not hesi-
tated in times past to say that II
ought to be reduced, and to explain
how 1t came not to, be reduced in the
Payne bill as 1t ought to have been.
But 1t is one thing to know that a
schedule Of this sort is too high, and
1t is very different thing in such a
complicated schedule to know upon
what items the reductions should be
made and how great the reduction
ought to be. II the principle to which
/ am committed, and to which the par
ty Is committed in the strong terms
Of the resolutions, which have quot
ed above, was to be observed as a
policy at all, here was the occasion
for following 1t. II had allowed the
wool bill to become law, the progress
made in public opinion toward a bet
ter method of revising the tariff would
have been entirely lost and the policy
cast to the winds.
Some defense is made of the bill on
the ground that the committee on ways
and means had considered it carefully
In committee for month or more, but
the point is that the bill they prepared
is not this bill. It is changed in all of
its rates and materially changed to
meet by compromise a bill that was
never in committee at all, and the
blending was done, as was said, with
"blacksmith's tools" The house bill
was a free trade or at least an anti
protection bill; what the hybrid was.
who could tell? In view of the enor-
nous value Of the wool and wooden
Industry which might be disastrously
N~ANSSSS0 w NA4C OAAAt Wdb TOO
much to delay the bill, under the cir
cumstances, for ninety days merely to
secure accurate information? thought
not. Indeed, ] could find no argument
which would satisfy my conscience in
signing the bill.
Free List Bill.
The free-ltst bill was called the
farmers free list" for the purpose
or giving an impression that ii was
passed to compensate the farmers for
some sort Of injury supposed to be done
by the Canadian reciprocity treaty
This reason was finally repudiated by
the leader of the democracy on the
noor OF the house Of representatives
and is certainly not true. There was
nothing in the Canadian reciprocity
bill that required any compensation ia
the farmers, for in a very short per-
iod after actual operation It will ap-
pear that they, as well as everybody
else, have been improved in condition
by our larger trade with Canada. But
the bill was framed and came to me
in form calculated to mislead as tc
its effect. In the first clause all agri-
cultural implements were declared tc
be free, and great many were named
These same implements were named
in the Payne bill, and were made free
In that bill for any country which per-
mltted our agricultural implements tc
enter 1t without duty. This opened tc
England the market Of the United
States for agricultural implements. AS
matter OF fact the price Of agricul-
tural implements in America is cheap
er, as shown by report of the bureau
OF trade relations of the state depart.
ment, to the American farmers thar
to any farmers In the world. England
is the one country that exports agri-
cultural implements to any great ex.
tent, and SO successful is the compe-
tition against her in this country Of
American agricultural implements thai
practically very few have come in from
England. This first clause, therefore
Of the free-list bill offers no boon K
the farmers at all, although apparently
drawn for the purpose Of inducing
them to think so. 1t does contain some
very general words at the close Of the
specially mentioned articles which By
Interpretation might be made to in.
clude $50 different articles used on tn.
| farm. but used In other vocations also
And these articles-the hammers, tn,
tools, the cutlery, and the MACHINERY
| OF various kinds--are now dutiable un,
der the metal schedule. To admit then
under this clause would be to destro.
| entirely the symmetry Of the meta
schedule and produce such a confusion
as seriously to interfere with the ad.
ministration Of the tariff act.
Another clause provides for the ad
mission OF barbed wire fencing free
and then all wire and other materta
which could be used for fencing, ant
includes wire rods and wire rope. II
let in barbed wire fencing alone would
be unimportant to producers, but tn,
framing OF the amending clause is suel
| that If it were to go into law 1t would
nave serious effect upon the meta
schedule and would utterly destroy tn,
principle which was followed In it,
| framing and would make free of dutv
some OF the most highly wrought ar
| ticles under the metal schedule no
| used by the farmers at all. Then Their,
is a clause admitting jute and cotton
bagging free, and materials from which
made, which would allow common cot
| ton cloth to come in free for any pur
| pose, although under the cotton SEIZED
! ule, even as proposed to be amended
/ by this congress-. cotton cloth Is to pa,
a certain amount of duty The bill ais
puts boots and shoes of all kinds OF
the free list. 1t did not put on tn
free list, except some kinds Of leather
the materials which went into shoes
In other words, 1t put on the free lis
the finished product and continued TIL
tax on raw materials. This would b
such a burden on our manufacturer
that its injustice must appeal to every
one. The fact is that under the Ding
ley bill imported shoes were taxed q
! per cent ad valorem, while In TIL
Payne bin the duty was reduced from
25 per cent to 10 per cent, the dut
on hides was reduced from is per cen
to nothing, and the duty on leather wa
reduced to 5 per cent. No evidenc
/ was taken az to what effect this mt