The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-04-07
MIR. MoYLE ON WOOL.

Ne print on another page this morD'
ing a letter of considerable length from
Mr. James H. Moyle, the retiring chair
man of the Democratic State Commit
tee. In so far as Mr.. Moy'e eriticises
the State organ of the bogus Republi.
can party for its partisanship and mis-
representations, and the chief church
organ for confining its interests chiefly
to the personal concerns politically of
Apostle Smoot, We agree with Mr.,
Moyle. In so far, however. as he may
suggest that The Tribune has only of
late adopted policy OF fairness III
the presentation of IT'S news aud the
treatment Of public questions. We de
mur, for that has always been The
Tribune S policy. We present the news
fairly and fully, and we by no means
shrink from presenting and considering
views adverse to our own. We are do
ing this all the time, and 1t is well
known. and has been from of old, that
The Tribune is the only paper in Utah
that consistently and fairly does this.
| Coming now TO the points of Mr..
Moyle's letter so far as it specially
and for all any idea of defending the
! bunko revision of the tariff as insisted
| upon by the L. S. Senate at the special
session of 1909. We have always con"
demned if, we condemn it now, and
therefore we object to the intimation
that we are put on the defensive when
that schedule is attacked And where
Mr.. Moyle states that President Taft
approved that revision. he ought to
state also, rs the fact is. that Presi
before the knowledge Of the country s
condemnation of that revision was had,
stated with respect to the wool sched
ule that Schedule X was absolutely in
defensible. Thus, in attacking Schedule
*, Mr.. Moyle has our sympathy and
support; but we do not agree with him
in his method of attack, preferring the
revision prepared in view of the report
and conclusions of the Tariff Board and
embraced in the so-calJed Smoot bill
for revising the wool tariff We have
agreed with President Taft all the time
that the wool schedule ought to be re-
vised and put on buslnesslike, COM
nonsense basis. Smoot disagreed with
this. and made long speech, in which
he argued that it was impossible to
change any schedule of the tariff with
out disarrapging the whole scheme of
the law. He has fortunately changed
his opinion on this, and now comes for
ward specifically as the champion of
the revision of Schedule 4. But that
revision is based upon the facts and
conclusions reached by the Tariff Board, |
whereas the Democratic scheme of re-
vision is based upon nothing except |
political bias and academic assumption. |
The distinctive difference is that the |
revision proposed in the Smoot measure |
is founded upon the levy of specific |
duties. The revision proposed by the
Democrats and passed by the House is
based upon the ad valorem principle. |
A Democratic tariff is always founded |
on the ad valorem basis, and is
always disastrous, especially to the
prices Of wool. When the Wilson tariff |
bill was passed in 1894 under the Sec
ond administration of President Cleve-
land, the price of wool fell to disas
trously low figures in all this mountain
region. Eight cents pound was then
considered pretty good price for
wool: and so the woolgrowers have rea
son to distrust Democratic legislation
on the wool tariff. We believe that the
Democratic tariff as proposed would
work in the same direction as the Will
son tariff bill referred to, although we
do not consider that the present bill
is as bad in this respect as the Wilson
bill was.
On the face Of it, We see Mr. Moyle
great difference between the specific
twenty per cent tariff on the secured
basis proposed in the Smoot bill from
the twenty~nine per cent duty on the
ad valorem basis proposed by the Demo
Gratis. But the difference is vital in the
practical working OF the TWO PROPOSE
tioDs. The Republican revisions of the
tariff OH wool have always been such
that the wool industry could thrive;
the Democratic revisious have always
been disastrous to the woolgrower5.
This difference arises in the fuDda.
difference in methods Of laying
the customs duty. The results are such
as all who have studied the question
and as are exemplified in
the reference made above TO the Will
son tariff bill.
Mr. Moyle objects to our criticism of
the Democrats for their delay in pre-
senting their tariff bill. This is put
ting the matter inexactly, We objected
Ia H., -