Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-09-21
TAFT tells WHY
Continued from page ~

on either of these bills, and they pre-
sented no satisfactory information
upon which the effect of any of them
upon the industries involved could be
judged. Their Investigations may
have been sufficient to satisfy the
conscience of a tariff-for-revenue man
who believes in any reduction, how
ever great, of existing duties, but for
one pledged as l am to maintain a
tart high enough to enable exist
ing industries to live, the case is diff
ferent.
The Wool Bill
The wool bill proposed 9 revenue
duty of twenty per cent upon raw wool
instead of II cents a pound, reduc.
ton of considerably more than so
per cent of the present duty, and an
average duty of so per cent on wooden
cloth and manufactures. This was
avowedly tariff for revenue and was
not drawn for the purpose of protect.
ing the industries. 1t passed the
house and went to the senate. where
an insurgent republican senator pro.
posed a substitute in which the duty
on wool of the first class was 1lxed at
40 per cent. and of second class or
carpet woods at 10 per cent, and the
average percentage on the wooden
manufactures was made 60 per cent
ad valorem. It was claimed by it's
author to be protection bill. It was
never submitted to committee, no
evidence was eyer taken N regard to
it, and it was evolved from the indie.
pendent investigation of a single sena-
tor. A majority of the insurgents. and
the democrats in the senate compro'
missed on bill which made the tax on
raw wool, first class, IS per cent;
second class, 10 per cent: and the
average duty ON woolens IS 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 bill was agreed upon in which
the duty was 20 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
fixed in the senate, 10 per cent, and
as fixed in the house, per cent
Here was the first case presented to
me. There was nothing in the record
of either the house or senate from
which could obtain any information
as to the effect of this bill upon the
wool and wooden industry of this coun
try. submit that the history of its
making shows no principle whatever
in the bill except compromise be-
tween two opposing principles for the
purpose of passing the bill, without
any indication as to it's effect on the
industry to which it applies.
No Adequate Information Available
This bill reduced the duty on wool
ems to an average of 40 per cent
with a duty on the raw-material WOO
of 20 per cent. The Wilson bill, pass
ed in 1894, had reduced thed uty tc
so per cent with no duty on the raw
wool at all, a much more favorable
arrangement to the manufacturers
than in the present bill, and yet the
years of the Wilson bill were years o.
disaster to the wooden manufacturers
1t may be that other causes than the
tariff contributed to the failure o.
wooden mills in the time of the viii
son bill, and it may we'll be thai
conditions in the wooden business have
changed so that it does not need al
much protection as then; but I hat
no adequate information, and had beer
furnished none. upon which I coult
say that the bill presented to me wa
in accord with the republican plat
form Of protection upon which I wa
elected, and to which l am in homo
bound to square my official act AM
policy. In the absence of such ade
quate information, and with the pros
pect of securing it in three months, /
became my bounden duty to withhold
my approval Of the bill. What wa
the necessity for such great haste Il
passing the bill at an extra session
called for another purpose? The bill
as it passed the house provided
should 90 into effect January 1. 1915
The bill as it patsed the senate COZ
tanned similar provision. When tn
bill went into conference, am "
formed that the suggestion was mad
that the date of January 1, 1912, 70