6
solicitations to tho fow near him. against tho
boot intorosta of many who ho will never see.'
Discussing tho maximum and minimum pro
vision, Mr. Clark dcclarod it to bo idiotic policy
to go out hunting trado with a club and meat
"People will trado with us only if wo trado
with them," ho said. If ho had his way, ho
romarkod, ho would forco every citizen to com
mit to memory President McKinloy's Buffalo
address, in which ho declared that if tho United
States wanted a market for its products it must
buy other people's products."
Mr. Glarko emphasized his faith in Presldont
Taft, but ho said, "ho is subject to the samo
infirmities as tho rest of us, and there will
bo all sorts of efforts to keep him from ascer
taining tho faots on which ho would base his
judgmont to cuj, this tremendous load of maxi
mum down."
Tho bill ho characterized as "tho most stu
pendous fako in tho history of mankind."
MR. TAFT'S RETREAT AS VIEWED BY A
NEWSPAPER THAT SUPPORTED
HIM IN 1008
In its issue of July 27, tho New York Times,
a newspaper that supported the republican
ticket, printed an editorial entitled "Mr. Taft's
Retreat." Tho editorial follows:
Tho dispatch from Washington printed in tho
Timos yesterday, stating Mr. Taft's present
views of tariff revision, tells tho story of failure
to keep pledges ropeatedly given, of the aban
donment of a' resolve, arid of a change in public
policy more remarkable, perhaps, than any other
recorded In tho history of American presidents
and administrations. Tho plain meaning of it
is that Mr. Taft, after for weeks resolutely fac
ing Senator Aldrlch and the upward revisionists,
has turned back beaten. If our Washington
dispatch correctly presents his views he is in
full retreat.
If the language in which this change of pur
pose is made known was intended to conceal its
meaning or to break the shock of the disap
pointment, It fails utterly. Tho fact is clearly
vlBlblo through jthe hedges of words that, where
as in tho campaign Mr. Taft many times in
terpreted the platform utteranco as a promise
of revision downward, whereas ho many times
personally pledged himself to use all his Influ
ence to secure such a revision downward, and
whereas, during four months of the struggle
over the tariff, ho has resolutely opposed the
designs of Senator Aldrich and has fought
against tho standpatters and their efforts to
enact a tariff that would betray the promises
of tho platform and of the candidate, he now
gives up the fight and takes a position that, so
xar as the people and the consumers are con
cerned, is quite indistinguishable from that of
the Rhode Island senator. Save for a few petty
details he yields everything, most of all prin
ciple. x
tiinffnln?1!? 1un"ecessary to Point out that the
platform "is built upon the protective theory."
"nonS ?: fN00d,y has consted the platform
upon the tariff for revision only theory or
upon the incidental protection theory, or upon
iea,on1nh?flthGry-'' ,As a pleco f' economic
mJW? thl Parage from the statement of
Mr. Taft's position is amazing:
Consequently, in Mr. Taft's view, the attempt
to determine tho worth of the ponding bin by
a comparison of the importations under the
Dingley law with tho estimates of those undo?
the new law is the most illogical course that
could be pursued. But that is exactly what he
understands to have been done by several of
the progressive senators in their arguments in
the senate and elsewhere, as to the defects n"
the Aldrich-Payne bill. The true comparison,
in his opinion, would be cf the total consumn-
tion of any given article under the Dingley law
with the estimated consumption under the new
law, and the difficulties in iho way of accuracy
mucSCvahioCTPariSOn PrVent e MS?5
Economists have sometimes put the cart be
fore the horse in that way, but they have nevS
got anywhere by that method of harne?sinl
Prices and consumption have a very Xlct rt
lation But it is something new to be 'toW that
experience may be thrown to the winds and
prices, arbitrarily raised by tariff dutte8?wlthout
providing any other measure of their effect thSi
that of simply waiting to see how C ? aflKS
consumption. The bill now in conference does
n so .duties in. many. schedules, notably ?n the
cotton schedule, .a.Jact of which .we give nroof
yesterday. The duty, of coui-se increases the
The Commoner.
cqst of tho foreign commodity. To. the extent
that foreign competition hi excluded, tho Amer
ican producer will raise hia price. That is a
matter of common knowledge and experience.
Wo do not need to wait. We need no new evi
dence. A comparison of tho Dingley rate gives
an infallible forecast of what is going to happen.
Besides, we are told that ,an estimate of prob
able consumption la ono Impossible to bo made.
The test is abandoned as soon as proposed.
Mr. Taft repudiates tho theory of the progres
sive senators that -the promise of tho platform
involved a reduction in prices to the consumer.
This, ho says, is what it meant:
"With that end in view, the reductions which
have been asked for have been sought not In the
effort to reduce prices to the point where im
portations of foreign goods would necessarily
follow which would be contrary to the protec
tive theory but with the purpose of bringing
duties down to such a point that it would be
impossible, through combination and its conse
quent destruction of competition, to force prices
above what they now are. In other words, the
object sought Is to prevent the further raising
of prices rather than the reduction of them
through foreign competition."
Nothing short of foreign competition or the
threat of it, will reduce prices here. The Ding
ley tariff is avowedly a measure of exclusion, it
shuts out competition. In many important
schedules the bill in conference raises those
duties. Will that prevent combination? Will
that prevent the further raising of prices in
the domestic market? Such an explanation of
tho theory on which this tariff has been drawn
satisfies neither the mind nor the conscience.
It has no relevancy to the facts. The benefi
ciaries of the present tariff have schedules of
export prices very much lower than the prices
the home consumer pays. Does the theory of
protection which Mr. Taft is so careful to ex
plain demand the raising of a tariff that per
mits such practices? Does it demand, even, that
that tariff should be revised merely on the stand
pat principle?
The president reminds the "progressives" that
the theory of protection insists that prices will
be kept down by the operation of competition
behind the protection wall, and that "now the
effort is to establish the duties at a point where
they will serve as a check to such combinations."
In the cotton goods schedule, for instance, where
the duties are increased from 10 to 120 per
cent over the Dingley duties. In the steel sched
ule, for instance, where u great part of the .
duties is retained, although men most familiar
with the business say that no protection at all
Is required.
In only one or two schedules does the con
ference bill give promise of any reduction of
prices through any process to American con- .
sumers. Yet in his speech at Fort Dodge on
October 3, 1908, Mr. Taft said:
"The normal operation of protection, where
competition has free scope, is to lower the cost
of producing and so reduce prices to the public.
As a consequence, after ten years' operation of
a particular schedule, it ought to result that
the cost of production in this country is made
less, and, therefore, that the difference between
the cost of production in this country and
abroad is less, and therefore that the duty ought
to be reduced. If I am elected, as I expect to .
be, I shall exercise all the legitimate influence
that a president as head of the republican party
can exercise to see to it that the plighted faith
of the party on this subject, in letter and in
spirit, is observed."
The plighted faith of the party is flouted and
broken in the conference bill, and in that be
trayal Mr. Taft now appears to have become
an assenting participant. The Dingley duties
have been In force not ten, but twelve years.
Not competition, but combination has flourished
behind that tariff wajl. Now the wall is to be
raised higher, and the president, withdrawing
all opposition, becomes a defender of the new
venture In extortion.
ALDRICH'S CONFESSION
Speaking in the United States senate, June
20, Senator Aldrlch, the republican leade. made
this confession:
"I will vote for tho corporation tax to get rid
of the income tax."
On the following day Senator Cummins of
Aia, ;eferroQ to the announcement that Mr .
K?c,loul1 takG a sea voyage and said:
.; After- the acknowledgment, which, he made to,
r the .senate yesterday with .respect to his vote in
bringing forward the amendment , that .we are
YOLUMB 9, NUMBER S
now considering," said Senator .Cummins, evi
dently referring to Mr. Aldrich's statement that
he favored the corporation tax to defeat tho
income tax amendment, "he needs the restora
tion and tho recuperation of salt air. I would
want to take a trip lasting about 1,000 years
if I should be compelled to make a confession
of that sort with respect to a measure brought
forward by myself."
Referring to Mr. Aldrich's confession tho New
York World says: "Senator Aldrich's brazen
confession yesterday that he accepted tho cor
poration tax as the surest means of defeating
an income tax will be less embarrassing to him
than to the president. The senator from Rhodo
Island is under no special pledge to the people
to reduce taxes or to equalize them. Mr. Taft
is solemnly committed to both of those policies.
Without the powerful assistance of the president
the senator would make little headway with his
corporation tax. With that assistance he seems
to have defeated the income tax for this session.
Bad faith is common among the congressional
upholders of privilege and plutocracy, but it is
not often that an Aldrich has ventured publicly
to boast that he has tricked a president of the
United States. This would appear to be a
proper occasion for Mr. Taft to demonstrate
the fact that the chief magistrate is to be found
in the White House and not in tne office of the
senate finance committee."
Practical Tariff Talks
In no other schedule in the whole tariff will
be found so much involution as in that relating
to wool. The high tariff advocates are divided
between looking after the interests of the man
who raises the sheep and those who manufac
ture the wool. This country grows from one
eighth to one-tenth of the total wool grown in
the world and it uses between one-fourth and
one-fifth. The total wool grown in the United
States is 300,000,000 pounds a year, while the
consumption Is about 500,000,000 pounds. The
wool grower asks for heavy protection it
ranges from 100 to 134 per cent, depending
upon the grades because he said he wants to
increase his. flock and be able to furnish it all.
The manufacturer wants the same protection
in the way of manufactured wool products so
that he may manufacture, first,. the wool grown
in this country and then, if there is a deficit,
bring the raw wool in from other countries
in its natural state and not in manufactured
fabrics, thereby giving employment to a great
number of men and women. That is the reason
advanced by Senator Warren, himself a heavy
sheep owner, why there should be high protection.
To show just how this program has resulted
in the transfer of money from the pockets of
the consumers to those of the growers, these
figures are cited: From 1897, when the Ding
ley law went into effect, the number of sheep
Increased in this country 48 per cent, and their
value increased 215 per cent. In time, one
would expect that naturally we will grow all
the wool we need and that then the infant in
dustry being fully developed we can have free
wool. But Senator Warren warns us that this
will never come to pass because the foreigner
insists upon selling wool at half what the Amer
ican wool grower gets now for his. This well
illustrates the deadfall that the protectionists
have arranged. We can tax ourselves for years
while the herd owners are increasing their
flocks and their clip, but they will always ask
for protection because wool in the world's mar
lieiSbrSgS 0nly ha"what they get for it under
the tariff we levy. It is a well recognized prin
S? f eco.nomIlCB tfaat the surplus of any pro-
2SSL tS PJ?ce' Thus there Is a great deal
a co"on wheat, corn, rye, oats, etc., raised
in America than Is consumed here. Their price
is fixed where tho surplus is sold. Duties on
SSfJJ XS.te d no affect the PrIce the grower
receives. Thus we have the anomaly presented
w ?,W?f 8KWP mourn"y demanding that
Jin! TS hlm hlgh Protecon in order to stim
l w l?d,USt,ry' while at the same time he
says that it isn't desirable that tho production
SL? 5a exceed tlle needs of tho country.
o grower gets so tremendous an ad
3KSge Siven himr the manufacturer demands
his share of the graft.- ....
.: .. C. Q. D. :
jggguteur" ft jiinij