Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1912-10-14


view to the press some ten days
ago. If the interview had in reality
been given by third person it
would probably have been contrived
more cleverly for the presidents
political advantage.
He advanced the most convincing
argument for the election of Mr..
Wilson that has yet been contrib
uted to the campaign.
Mr., Taft declared first that the
tariff is responsible for the high
cost of living; second, that the tar
iff ought to be reduced; third that
it ought to be reduced scientifically.
If President Tafts conclusions are
correct there is no alternative for
philanthropic and patriotic citizen
but to vote for Mr.. Wilson.
Obviously, if the American pro-
tective tariff is responsible for the
high cost of living which at present
prevails all over the world, then
undoubtedly our voters owe to their
own country and to other friendly
rations the humanitarian duty of
relieving the oppressive burden of
the high cost of living in America
and elsewhere by promptly reduc-
ing the American protective tariff.
Obviously again. if il is the duty
of our considerate and conscien-
tious citizens to reduce the tariff,
it is their plain duty not to vote for
Mr. Taft, who had four years OPP
portunity to reduce the tariff and
did not do it, nor to vote for Mr.
Roosevelt who had seven years
opportunity to reduce the tariff and
did not do Mt. but to vote for MIR.
Wilson, who wants to reduce the
tariff and positively will reduce the
tariff if given an opportunity to
do it.
Obviously, Furthermore and final
lY. as scientific reduction of the tar
iff does not consist in doing nothing
at all to the tariff. as was done
throughout Mr. Rooseyelts two
terms, nor yet in dishonesty in
creasing the tariff in spite of party
pledges, as was done with Mr..
Tafts consent and approval during
his term.
Scientific reduction of the tariff
consists rather in judiciously and
discriminatory modifying the tar
iff in way carefully calculate to
benefit all the people of the United
States, be they employers or labor
ers. producers or consumers.
To secure and insure such scien-
titic modification of the American
tariff l beg most respectfully to
suggest to Governor Wilson the
following course:
First, the abandonment OF all
old stock free-trade arguments
based upon fallacies and upon ex-
ploded theories and upon premises
which have been proven to be false
by the practical and Improbable
experiences of free trade nations
like England.
Second. the recognition Of the
principle of protection of Ameri-
can industries and the wise and
to those industries which require
and deserve protection.
Third, the modification of the
protective tariff on the one hand by
reciprocity, which will open the
markets of foreign nations to our
products in return for the opening
of our markets to their products,
and on the other hand by prefer
entail duties which will reduce the
tariff on goods imported into the
United States in American ships.
All of these policies are Demo-
cratic and have the sanction Of
Democratic precedent; but, more
essential than that, they are pa
triotic They are policies which
will develop the manufactures Of
the nation and the trade of the
nation and the merchant marine OF
the nation and the general pros
perity of the nation. They are pol
icies which, through increased pro-
duction and increased commerce
and transportation and increased
employment and payment, will ben
eft every individual in the nation.
1t is useless to talk of a pro-
tective tariff properly applied being
mainly responsible for the in
creased cost of living. 1t is worse
than useless. It is senseless.
The cost of living in England,
free trade country, is quite as
great as the cost Of living in the
United States. protective Coun-
Try. Indeed. to make an even
more convincing comparison. the
cost Of living in England. a free
trade country. is notably greater
than the cost of living in Ger
many. a protective country.
If. therefore, free trade or radi-
cal tariff reduction can reduce the
cost of living. why is not the cost
of living in free trade England
largely lower than the cost OF liv-
ing in protected United States or
at least as low as in protected Ger
many?
AS matter of fact. even the
most radical tariff reduction does
not materially reduce the uniVer-
sally increasing cost of living, but
it does materially reduce the
wherewithal to meet the increasing
cost of living.
Radical tariff reduction does
force manufacturers out of bust
ness and men out Of employment,
and by throwing superabundance
Of labor upon the market does re-
1ure the pf-ige of labor which is