New Britain herald., 1928-11-01
.C.E. SMITH fAVORS
 HOOVER'S ELECTION
Sktp6cL on Democratic Change
 h Altitude on Tariff

Charles F. Smith. chairman of the board of directors of Landers. FrAry & Clark today made a statement ex- plaining his preference for the re- : publican party because of its rec l ord on the protective tariff. He said that he had mo hesitation in saying that the protective tariff is largely responsible for the existence md prosperity of New Britain"
 MT. Smiths statement is as fol- lows:
 'As one who has often voted in our city elections without regard to he party labels. religion or race of aandidates for office. it cannot be aid that I am bitter partisan. "As one who has been and is con- oected with Catholics as with Pro-
 'stant philanthropies it cannot be aid that my views on economic questions are biased by religious
 rejudices.
 'As one who has for many years helped ln building up the industries of New Britain it cannot be said , that I am ignorant of the conditions :. on which those industries are found .ed.
 On these grounds I ask the priv iiege to speak as a reasonable per- son to those who wish to use their reason on the question in this cleo ton of greatest importance to New :, Britain, namely: the protective tariff.
 During all my business life the democratic party has bitterly oppos- cd the protective tariff. Six years ago its present leader denounced it ss cold -blooded holdup. This year its platform advocates a competitive tariff with the Underwood bill cited as an example in its leaders accep- tance. When their party leaders saw that would not satisfy the country they disayowed the inferences to be drawn from that platform and that Underwood bill example and came out for tariff commission which shall take up schedules one by one and report to congress. Finally they say that they are just as good pro- tectionists now as are the republi- cans.
 "That Is . very reasonable state rnent of the democratic position.
 What does it mean? What does it admit? It means and admits that the democratic position on this grave question for the last 50 years has been all wrong. It means that under the necessity of satisfying the cleo torate they are compelled to say that the protective tariff is not a cold-blooded holdup but a benefi- cial thing and as such, but in their own way. they will preserve and protect 1t. They ask that this great |. matter shall be taken out of the hands of the party that has fought for 1t for 50 years and put in the hands of those who have through all those years denounced 1t. and on the two occasions in which they had con- trol of the government have passed their own tariff bills in which the protective idea was practically ab- sent.
 T do not believe 1t possible for a great political party to really aban- don overnight the economic prin- ctples 1t has held for 50 years. It seems to me that the durability of this sudden change must be viewed in the light of its present party platform and its past record in this matter.
 "But let us assume for the pur- pose of argument that they are now sincerely in favor of a protective tarifE As a reasonable man speaking 10 reasonable people. does 1t seem logical or sensible to turn over this great principle to the care of those who would have destroyed it but who now in the stress of this cam paign claim to have been completely converted to it? Would any sensible person turn over his private affairs 1r the management of his property 10 one who should say. I know my tdvice for fifty years has been yronr odp,It tho noo uyhosn aH-