Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-10-11

partisans who complain the loudest
against errors and omissions in pending
tariff rates also fighting the hardest
against a rational flexibility which will
permit these errors and omissions 10
be cured eApeditiously?
This, then, is our case. Admin
istrative f1exibility in tariff law is APP
by common sense. Without it the
country is in tariff chains. With it
we can save ourselves in the face of
the changing conditions in changing
world. Without it our prosperity has
no accident insurance. With 1t we are
armed to Surmount emergency. Presi-
dent Hoover emphatically recommends
it. Republican majorities in House
and Senate approve it. The country
wants it Our common economic well
fare needs it, I do not quarrel with
the good conscience of those who are
opposed. But 1 submit that they could
not more greatly err if their counsels
were solely counsels of politics or folly.
BarkIeys Address.
Senator Barkleys speech follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Radio
Audience:
In discussing the important questions
involved in the flexible tariff provisions
of the pending bill it is desirable to
ascertain what is meant by the flexible
tariff.
1t is proposal to grant to the Pres
ident the power to raise or reduce
tariff rates upon imported articles of
commerce to the extent of so per cent
Of the rates fixed by law. This is the
proposal of the Republican members
of the finance committee of the SEN
ate, and 1t is contained in the bill as
it passed the House. The Senate, after
long debate, has eliminated this pru
posal and substituted the plan offered
by Senator Simmons, ranking Demo-
cratic member of the finance commit
tee, which requires that the reports of
the Tariff Commission, after investiga-
ton, shall be made to Congress and
that Congress. instead of the President,
shall decide whether rates shall be in
creased or decreased.
This question involves not only an
Interpretation of the Constitution. but
it involves the question of the wisdom
or unwisdom of such a policy.
When the trainers of the ConStitu-
ton met in Philadelphia to determine
the character of the new Governments
they were about to set up they sought
to divide its powers into three branches.
The first was the legislative, to make
the laws; the second was the eXecu-
tive, to enforce them, and the third
was the judicial. to interpret them.
These men remembered that the Rev.
olution had been fought over the power
of the King to tax the people without
giving them a voice in the determine
ton of the question. They remenI
bered that the Colonies had suffered
from the effects of legislation in which
they were not consulted.
Constitutional Prov;s;on
Therefore they wrote into the Con-
stitution this language:
"All legislative power shall be vested
in Congress, composed of Senate
and House of Representatives.
What did they mean by Legislative
power? They meant the power to
adopt any rule or law by which the
people were to be governed. They
meant by this to confer upon the
branch of the Government chosen by
and responsible to the people the eX-
elusive right to legiSlate into existence
rules of action by which they were TO
be governed.
The levying of taxes in any form is
legislation and is so recognized in every
parliamentary government in the world
and in every State in the American
Union
Not only does the Constitution vest
all legislative power in the Congress,
it came to providing for legislation i'm
posing taxes upon the people. For it
provides that
"All bills for raising revenue shall orig
mate in the House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives was
then and for more than a century the
only branch of Congress or the Gov