The Washington herald., 1913-04-11
Theory of the Democratic Tariff.

At this time the question may fairly
be asked: Upon what theory did the
Ways and Means Committee frame its
tariff bill? In it We have what pur-
ports to be fulfiliment of the party S
pledge to the people and in it we may
assume We have a typical Democratic
tariff bill
Tradition has it that the Democratic
party stands for tariff for revenue
only. This principle has never been
strictly applied. since a tariff for
revenue only is a tariff such as
the United Kingdom has, under which
few articles produced only outside
the country are taxed; but ii has al
ways been contended by the leaders of
the Democracy and asserted in the
platforms OF the party that revenue is
the primary object of the tariff
The Baltimore platform adhereS to
this theory We declare it TO be- it
SAYS. "a fundamental principle of the
Democratic party that the Federal
government under the Constitution has
no right or power to impose or collect
tariff duties. except for the purpose of
revenue. and We demand that the COL
lection of such taxes shall be limited
TO the necessities of government hon
cstly and economically administered"
L., p+bar ,rDrJc p,1
timorc said, implicitly at least, that a
protective tariff is unconstitutional and
that tax on importations could only
be justified on the ground that it pro-
duceS revenue.
In view of these facts. it is interest
ing to notice the tariff theory set forth
by Mr.. Underwood in the statement
which accompanied the new tariff bill
and by Mr. Wilson in his message
Mr.. Underwood is an advocate of
what he calls a competitive tariff /"
He explains his position in the fol-
lowing passage, and at the same time
contrasts it with what he considers to-
be the Republican theory of the tariff
The dividing line between the posi-
tons of the two great parties in this ques-
ton is very clear and easily ascer-
tanned in theory. Where the tariff
rates balance the difference in cost of
production at home and abroad, includ-
ing an allowance for the difference in
freight rates. the tariff must be COM
ward to the lowest tariff that can be
levied will continue 10 be competitive
10 a greater or less extent. Where
competition is not interfered with by
leyying the tax about the highest COM
petitiyc point, the profits of the manu-
facturer are not protected. On the
other hand, when the duties levied at
the custom-house are high enough to
allow the American manufacturer toi
make profit before his competitor
can enter the field, we have invaded
the domain of the protection of
profits.
MIR. Wilson in his message to Con-
grcss also advocates competitive
tariff. Aside from the duties" he
says. laid upon articles which we do
not and probably cannot produce,
therefore, and the duties laid upon
luxuries and merely for the sake of
the revenues they Yield, the object of
the tariff duties henceforth laid must
be effective competition, the whetting
of American wits By contest with the
wits of the rest of the world"
The one thing that is perfectly
patent. in comparing the above state
ments is that the tariff policy laid
down in the Baltimore platform is not
the same as the tariff policy laid down
in the statements of Mr. Wilson and
Mr. Underwood The Baltimore plat
form states in substance that a pro-
tcctive tariff is unconstitutional and
that there is no other justification for
levying tariff duties except as a means
for raising revenue. On the contrary. |
the statements of Mr. Wilson and Mr.. !
Underwood propose competitive tar
III. If competitive tariff is anything |
dl dll IL Is plOtCCllNC ldIlH. III Is
based upon the theory that the condi- |
ditions OF competition between the in |
dustries in the United States and SINH |
lar industries abroad are not equal. |
and that, therefore. the purpose of |
the tariff is to equalize those condi- |
tionS This, it will be recalled. is pre-
cisely the position taken by the Pro-
gressive party in its Chicago platform
In the framing of such a tariff the re-
ceipts of the government from the GUS
toms are not the primary object, and
the foremost idea in mind is the inter
ests of domestic industry
Whether consciously or unconsciou-
~. therefore. the leaders of Democracy
have drifted far afield and are stand
;nG upon the PRINCIPLES which Their