The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-03-01


 and with a. fair motive and sometimes for the mere purpose of stirring up the peo- pie by showing them only half the facts. Now, let us suppose that three years ago, instead of hayingeto depend wholly on newspaper abstracts of the tariff hear ings, a few published speeches in Congress, and editorial comments which necessarily reflected the political or personal feeling of such commentator, the people at large had had within easy reach non-p partisan bureau of information from whose files they could ascertain just what the con dition of the iron and steel trades, the wool and woolen trades, and all the rest, had been at the time of the passage of the Dingley tariff act in 1897, and what changes had occurred in them. In any part of the world, since then. They had pur the republican party in power for four years more, and had a right to hold it to account for carrying out, as we'll as was humanly possible, the promise of its platform of 1908, including the clause de- manding a revision of the tariff with the obvious intent that the revision should be downward.
 A Comparison
 Isn't it plain that instead of seeing a law turned out by Congress in the way that the Payne law was turned out, and having the air rent afterward by accusa- tions and recriminations for 30 months continuously, we should have witnessed cool headed direct and orderly pro- cedure leading up to the passage and pro- mitigation of the act, and then either a general popular acquiescence in the result. or an opposition based on facts which could be proved from original sources if challenged? Can there be any difference of intelligent opinion on the question which of these pictures makes the pleas anter impression on the mind, and which presents our institutions of self govern ment in the more dignified aspect? As t was, neither congress nor the American public had the first hand knowledge needed for the proper performance of its part: Congress, to enable it to frame bill most responsive to the demands of the platform; or the people, to criticise justly an act which Congress had evolved with such poverty of equipment for the task.
 But, you are aware that a good many protectionists object on prudential grounds to the sort of tariff you have set up for your ideal?
 Will Not Cut Too Far
 'T am not unmindful of the argument made by some timorous critics. that the effect of reducing our tariff to what they l call the comparative basis will be that | it will really draw below that, and cause | ouI iiidthttS lo Dt WILT CnedDIy made foreign goods, so that our producers will be driven out of business by insuffI- cient protection Well, there are two an- swers to that. The first is that the plat | form whose promises we are trying to full 1 fill does not contemplate such a cut in rates as would cripple any American in- dustry. It takes account Of the right ct the American producer to a reasonable profit. The difference between the for egn producers figures and those of the American producer, which I want to sec used as the measure of protection for the American, is the difference between what each expects to get for his goods, allow ing for fair competitive profit for him. self. I have already said this in another l form. but it will bear repeating, as it is a point on which so many people speak ap- parently without understanding, or at least without consideration.
 People Will Rule
 "The second answer is that Congress is never so indifferent to the will or the wei. fare of our people as to cut to the quick | in such matters. We are as far from the bald ideal of. free trade as from that oi the Chinese wall. Each has had its day and gone it's way. 1t is everywhere rec ognizea now that the foreigner is not going to be turned loose on our markets His only function is that of a restrain. l fno ifaH "a