Story of a tariff (the Tariff act of 1909) speeches of President Taft, Speaker Cannon, and 162 other extracts from debate in the extra session of the Sixty-first Congress.

../.•^^-.''*. .»^\>&\. ./.-iafe-.-'* ^^^"^ • ■*-^<* ''^^<>' <^ *'o.o-' <§^ 0*- "^o, -?5rT«' A ^ V «» * * « 0^ -LVl'* ^P' -^ *^ o '^ 0* V "-Js ^ .... 0" o ^ *0 '^^ < ;tory of a tariff (THE TARIFF ACT OF 1909) SPEECHES OF PRESIDENT TAFT, SPEAKER CANNON AND 162 OTHER EXTRACTS FROM DEBATE IN THE IctRA SESSION OF THE SIXTY-FIRST CONGRES! 93 subjects: 577 NOTATIONS PRICE FIFTY CENTS. PUBLISHED BY AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE NEW YORK. 1910. LINCOLN'S TARIFF CREED Secretary Stanton once asked Abraham Lincoln what he thought of a Protective Tariff. Mr. Lincoln replied: **I don't know much about the Tariff, but I do know that if my wife buys her cloak in America, we get the money and the cloak, and that American labor is paid for producing it; if she buys her cloak abroad, we get only the cloak, the other country gets the money, and foreign labor receives the benefit." STORY OF A TARIFF % >X: ST Tr*».o»'f*'^ lUN 1 1921 (100) STORY OF A TARIFF (THE TARIFF ACT OF 1909) The Best Tariff Bill that the Republican Party Ever Passed." -PRESIDENT TAFT. There is only one thing that can halt this confident move forward to give the country another era of prosperity such as we had from 1897 to 1907, and that is agitation for the mere purpose of agitation, without any well-conceived healthy purpose in view."— SPEAKER CANNON. Everybody has a perfect Tariff Bill— in his mind, but, unfortun- ately, a bill of that character has no extra-territorial juris- diction."-The late THOMAS B. REED. ( Parts of Congressional Record. ) EXTRACTS FROM DEBATE IN THE EXTRA SESSION OF THE SIXTY- FIRST CONGRESS INCLUDING SPEECHES BY PRESIDENT TAFT. ALDRICH, NELSON W., U. S. S., R. I. BATES, ARTHUR L., M. C, Penn. AMES, BUTLER, M.C., Mass. BEVERIDGE, ALBERT J., U.S.S., Iiid. AUSTIN, RICHARD W., M. C, Tenn. BORAH, WILLIAM E., U.S.S., Idaho. BACON, AUGUSTUS O., U.S.S., Ga. BOURNE Jr., JONATHAN, U.S.S., Ore, BAILEY, JOSEPH W., U.S.S., Texas. BOUTELL, HENRY S., M.C„ 111, BOWERS, EATON J., M.C., Mis.s. BRADLEY, THOMAS W., M.C., N. Y. BRADLEY, WILLIAM O., U.S.S., Ky. BRANDEGEE, F. B., U.S.S., Conn. BRISTOW, JOSEPH L., U.S.S., Kaiis. BROrSSARD, ROBERT F., M.C., Lii. BROWN, NORRIS, U.S.S., Nebr. BROWNLOW, W. P., M.C., Tenn. BrLKELEY, M. G., U.S.S., Conn. BURKE, JAMES F., M.C., Pa. BURKETT, ELMER J., U.S.S., Nebr. BURROWS, JULIUS C, U.S.S., Midi. BURTOJS', THEODORE E., U.S.S., O GALDERHEAD, AVM. A., M.C., Kans. CAMPBELL, PHILIP P., M.C., Kans. CANNON, JOSEPH G., M.C., HI. CARTER, THOMAS H., U.S.S., Mout. CLAPP, MOSES E., U.S.S., Minn, CLARK, CHAMP, M.C., Mo. CLARK, FRANK, M.C., Fla. CLAY, ALEXANDER S., U.S.S., Ga. CLAYTON, HENRY D., M.C., Ala. COLE, RALPH D., M.C, Ohio. COWLES, CHARLES H., M.C., N. C. CRAWFORD, COE I., l^.S.S., S. Dak. CRUMPACKER, P:DGAR D., M.C, Ind. CULBERSON, CHAS. A., U.S.S., Tox. (T'MMINS, ALBERT P... U.S.S.. Iowa. CUSHMAN, FRANCIS W., M.C, Wash. DALZELL, JOHN, M.(^., Pa. DANIEL, JOHN W., U.S.^., Va. DAVIDSON, JAMES H., M.C, Wis. DEPEW, CHAUNCEY M.. U.S.S., N. Y. DICK, CHARLES, U.S.S., Ohio. DIEKEMA, a. J., M.C, Mich. DIXON, JOSEPH M.. U.S.S., Mont. DOLLIVER, JONATHAN P., U.S.S., la. DRISCOLL, MICHAEL E., M.C, N. Y. EDWARDS, DON C, M.C, Ky. ELKINS, STEPHEN B., U.S.S.. W. Va ELVINS, POLITTE, M.C, Mo. FASSETT, J. SLOAT, M.C, N. Y. FISH, HAMILTON, M.C, N. Y. FLETCHER, D. UPSHAW, U.S.S., Fla. FLINT, FRANK P., U.S.S., Cal. FOCHT, BENJAMIN K., M.C, Pa. FORDNEY, JOSEPH ^Y., M.C, Mich. FOSTER, MURPHY J., U.S.S., La. FRYE, WILLIAM P., U.S.S., Me. FULLER, CHARLES E., M.C, 111. GAINES, JOSEPH IL, M.C, W. Va. GALLINGiER, JACOB H., U.S.S., N. H. GAMBLE, ROBERT J., U.S.S., S. Dak. GARDNER, AUG. P., M.C, Mass. GLASS, CARTER, M.C, Va. GORE, THOMAS P., U.S.S., Okla. GRAHAM, JAMES M., M.C, III. GRAHAM, WILLIAM H., M.C, Pa. GRONNA, ASLE J., M.C. N. Dak. GUERNSEY, FRANK E., M.C, Me. GUGGENHEIM, SIMON, U.S.S., Colo HALE, EUGENE, U.S.S., Me. HAMER, THOMAS R., M.C, l(hilio. HAMILTON, EDWARD L., M.C. Mir' HAMLIN, COURTNEY W., M.C, Mo. HAMMOND, W. S., M.C, Minn. HAUGEN, GILBERT N., M.C, Iowa, HEYBURN, WELDON B., U.S.S., Ida. HILL, EBENEZER J., M.C, Conn. HOLLINGS WORTH, D. A., M.C, Ohio. HOWELL, JOSEPH, M.C, Utah. HUBBARD, WM. P., M.C, W, V^. HUGHES, JAMES A., M.C., W. Va. HIXL, JOHN A. T., M.C., Iowa. HUMPHREY, WM. E., M.C., Wash. JOHNSON, MARTIN N., U.S.S., N. D. JONES, WESLEY L., U.S.S., Wash. JONES, WILLIAM A., M.C., Va. KEIFER, J. WARREN, M.C., Ohio. KENNEDY, JAMES, M.C., Ohio. KINKAID, MOSES P., M.C., Nebr. KNAPP, CHARLES L., M.C., N. Y. KOPP, ARTHUR W., M.C., Wis. KORBLY, CHARLES A., M.C., Ind. KUSTERMANN, GUSTAV, M.C., Wis. LAFEAN, DANIEL F., M.C., Pa. LA FOLLETTE, R. M., U.S.S., Wis. LANGLEY, JOHN W., M.C., Ky. LENROOT, IRVINE L., M.C., Wis. LODGE, HENRY C, U.S.S., Mass. LONGWORTH, NICHOLAS, M.C., O McCALL, SAMUEL W., M.C., Mass. McCUMBER, PORTER J., U.S.S., N. D. McENERY, SAMUEL D., U.S.S., La. McKINLAY, DUNCAN E., M.C., Cal. MADDEN, MARTIN B., M.C., HI. MAGUIRE, JOHN A., M.C., Nebr. MALBY, GEORGE R., M.C., N. Y. MARTIN, EBEN W., M.C., S. Dak. MILLER, JAMES M., M.C., Kans. MONDELL, FRANK W., M.C., Wyo. MOORE, J. HAMPTON, M.C., Pa. MORGAN, CHARLES H., M.C., Mo. MORGAN, DICK T., M.C., Okla. MORSE, ELMER A., M.C., Wis. NEEDHAM, JAMES C, M.C., Cal. NELSON, JOHN M., M.C., Wis. NELSON, KNUTE, U.S.S., Minn. NYE, FRANK M., M.C., Minn. OLIVER, GEORGE T., U.S.S., Pa. OWEN, ROBERT L., U.S.S., Okla. PARKER, R. WAYNE. M.C., N. J. PAYNE, SERENO E., M.C., N. Y. PENROSE, BOIES, U.S.S., Pa. PERKINS, GEORGE C, U.S.S., Cal. PETERS, ANDREW J., M.C., Mass. PILES, SAMUEL H., U.S.S., Wash. POINDEXTER, MILES, M.C., W^ash. POU, EDWARD W., M.C., N. C. PRAY, CHARLES N., M.C., Mont. PUJO, ARSENE P., M.C., La. RANSDELL, JOSEPH E., M.C., La. RAYNER, ISIDOR, U.S.S., Md. REEDER, WILLIAM A., M.C., Kans. REYNOLDS, JOHN M., M.C., Pa. RICHARDSON, WILLIAM, M.C., Ala. ROOT, ELIHU, U.S.S., N. Y. SCOTT, CHARLES F., M.C., Kans. SCOTT, NATHAN B., U.S.S., W. Va. SHARP, WILLIAM G., M.C., Ohio. SHIVELY, BENJAMIN F., U.S.S., Ind. SIMMONS, JAMES S., M.C., N. Y. SIMS, THETUS W., M.C., Tenn. SLEMP, C. BASCOM, M.C., Va. SMITH, ELLISON D., U.S.S., S.C. SMITH, JOHN WALTER, U.S.S., Md. SMITH, SAMUEL W., M.C., Mich. SMITH, WM. ALDEN, U.S.S., Mich. SMOOT, REED, U.S.S., Utah. STAFFORD, WILLIAM H., M.C., Wis. STEENERSON, HALVOR, M.C., Minn. STONE, WILLIAM J., U.S.S., Mo. STURGISS, GEORGE C, M.C., W. Va. SUTHERLAND, GEO., U.S.S., Utah. SWASEY, JOHN P., M.C., Me. TALIAFERRO, JAMES P., U.S.S., Fla. TAWNEY, JAMES A., M.C., Minn. TILLMAN, BENJ. R., U.S.S., S. C. TOWNSEND, CHAS. E., M.C., Mich. WARNER, WILLIAM, U.S.S., Mo. WARREN, FRANCIS E., U.S.S., Wyo. YOUNG, H. OLIN, M.C., Mich. 6 PRESIDENT TAFT, The President of the United States Declares the Tariff Law of 1909 to be "The Best Tariff Bill that the Republican Party Ever Passed." Speech of President Taft At Winona, Minn., September 17, 1909. Presented by Mr. Carter, December 1, 1909. Ordei-ed to be Printed. MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: As long ago as August, 1906, in the congres- sional campaign in Maine, I ventured to announce that I was a Tariff revi- sionist, and thought that the time had come for a readjustment of the sched- ules. I pointed out that it had been ten years prior to that time that the Dingley bill had been passed; that great changes had taken place in the conditions surrounding the productions of the farm, the factory, and the mine, and that under the theory of Protec- tion in that time the rates imposed in the Dingley bill in many instances might hayfie become excessive; that is, might have been greater than the dif- ference between the cost of production abroad and the cost of production at home, with a sufficient allowance for a reasonable rate of profit to the Amer- ican producer. I said that the party was divided on the issue, but that in my judgment the opinion of the party was crystallizing and would probably result in the near future in an effort to make such revision. I pointed out the difficulty that there always was in a revision of the Tariff, due to the threatened disturbance of industries to be affected, and the suspension of busi- ness, in a way which made it unwise to have too many revisions. In the sum- mer of 1907 my position on the Tariff was challenged, and I then entered into a somewhat fuller discussion of the n^.attcr. It was contended by the so- called "standpatters" that rates beyond the necessary measure of Protection were not objectionable, because behind the Tariff wall competition always re- duced the prices, and thus saved the consumer. But I pointed out in tliat speech what seems to me as true to- day as it then was, tliat the danger of excessive rates was in the temptation tliey created to form monopolies in the Protected articles, and thus to take ad- Vtontiige Qt the ejtcQSSiv^ rates by in- creasing the prices, and therefore, and in order to avoid such a danger, it was wise at regular intervals to examine the question of what the effect of the rates had been upon the industries in this country, and whether the condi- tions with respect to the cost of pro- duction here had so changed as to war- rant a reduction in the Tariff, and to make a lower rate truly Protective of the industry. Not to Destroy Protected Industries. It will be observed that the object of the revision under such a statement was not to destroy Protected' industries in this country, but it was to continue to Protect them where lower rates of- fered a sufficient Protection to prevent injury by foreign competition. That was the object of the revision as ad- vocated by me, and it was certainly the object of the revision as promised in the Republican platform. I want to make as clear as I can this proposition, because, in order to deter- mine whether a bill is a compliance with the terms of that platform, it must be understood what the platform means. A Free-Trader is opposed to any Protective rate because he thinks that our manufacturers, our farmers, and our miners ought to withstand the competition of foreign manufacturers and miners and farmers, or else go out of business and find something else more profitable to do. Now, certainly the promises of the platform did not contemplate the downward revision of the Tariff rates to such a point that any industry theretofore Protected should be injured. Hence, those who contend that the promise of the plat- form was to reduce prices by letting in foreign competition, are contending for a Free-Trade, and not for anything that they h.ad the right to infer from the Republican platform. Spent a Full Year in Investigation. The Ways and INIeans Committee of the House, with Mr. Payne at its liead, spent a full year in an investigation, assembling evidence in reference to the rates under the Tariff, and devoted an immense amount of work in the study of the question where the Tariff rates could be reduced and where they ougiit to bo raised with a view to m.ajntaining ^ reasonably Pro^QQtive PRESIDENT TxVFT. rate, under the principles of the plat- form, for every industry that deserved Protection. Tliey found that the deter- mination of the question, what was the actual cost of production and whetlier an industry in this country could live under a certain rate and withstand threatened competition from abroad, was most difficult. The manufacturers were prone to exaggerate the injury which a reduction in the duty would give and to magnify the amount of duty that was needed; while the im- porters, on the other hand, who were interested in developing the importa- tion from foreign shores, were quite likely to be equally biased on the other side. Mr. Payne reported a bill — the Payne Tariff bill — which went to the Senate and wa,s amended in the Senate by in- creasing the duty on some things and decreasing it on others. The difference between the House bill and the Senate bill was very much less than the news- papers represented. It turns out upon examination that the reductions in the Senate were about equal to those in the House, though thej^ differed in character. No'w, there is nothing quite so difficult as the discussion of a Tar- iff bill, for the reason that it covers so many different items, and the mean- ing of the terms and the percentages are very hard to understand. The pas- sage of a new bill, especially where a change in the method of assessing the duties has been followed, presents an opportunity for various modes and cal- culations of the percentages of in- creases and decreases that are most mi.sleadirg and really throw no light at all upon the changes made. Decreases 654, Increases 220. One way of stating what was done is to say what the facts show — that under the Dingley law there were 2,024 items. This included dutiable items only. The Payne law leaves 1,150 of these items unchanged. There are de- creases in 65 4 of the items and in- creases in 220 of the items. Now, of course, that does not give a full pic- ture, but it does show the proportion of decreases to have been three times those of the increases. Again, the schedules are divided into letters from A to N. The first schedule is that of chemicals, oils, etc. There are 232 items in the Dingley law; of these, 81 were decreased, 22 were increased, leaving 129 unchanged. Under Schedule B — earths, earthen and glassware — there Avere 170 items in the Dingley law; 46 were decreased, 12 were increased, and 112 left un- changed. C is the schedule of metals and man- ufactures. There were 321 items in the Dingley law; 185 were decreased, 30 were increased, and 106 were left un- changed. D is the schedule of wood and manu- factures of wood. There were 35 items in the Dingley law; 18 were decreased 3 were increased, and 14 were left un- changed. There were 38 items in sugar, and of these 2 were decreased and 36 left unchanged. Schedule F covers tobacco and manxi- factures of tobacco, of which there were 8 items; they were all left un- changed. In the schedule covering agricultu- ral products and provisions there were 187 iteius in the Dingley laAv; 14 of them Were decreased, 19 were in- creased, and 154 left unchanged. Schedule H — that of spirits and wines — contained 33 items in the Ding- ley law; 4 were decreased, 23 increased, and 6 were left unchanged. In cotton manufactures there were 261 items; of these 28 were decreased, 47 increased, and 186 left unchanged. In Schedule J — flax, hemp, and jute — there were 254 items in the Dingley law; 187 were reduced, 4 were in- creased, and 63 left unchanged. In wool, and manufactures thereof, there were 78 items; 3 were decreased, none were increased, and 75 left un- changed. In silk and silk goods there were 78 'items; of these, 21 were decreased, 31 were increased, and 26 were left un- changed. In pulp, papers, and books there were 59 items in the Dingley law, and of these 11 were decreased, 9 were in- creased, and 39 left unchanged. In sundries there were 270 items, and of these 54 were decreased, 20 were increased, and 196 left unchanged. So that the total showed 2,024 items in the Dingley law, of which 654 were decreased, 220 were increased, making 874 changes, and 1,150 left unchanged. PRESIDENT TAFT. Changes Made in the Payne Law. Changes in Dingley law by- Payne law. Items in Schedules. Dingley Total law. Decreases. Increases, changes. Unchanged. A. Chemicals, oils, etc 232 81 22 103 129 B. Earths, earthen and glass ware 170 46 12 58 112 C. Metals, and manufactures of 321 185 30 215 lOG D. Wood, and manufactures of 35 18 3 21 14 E. Sugar, molasses, and manufactures of . . 38 2 0 2 36 F. Tobacco, and manufactures of 8 0 0 0 8 G. Agricultural products and provisions... 187 14 19 33 154 H. Spirits, wines, etc 33 4 23 27 6 I. Cotton manufactures 261 28 47 75 186 J. Flax, hemp, jute, manufactures of 254 187 4 191 63 K. Wool, and manufactures of 78 3 0 3 75 L. Silk and silk goods 78 21 31 52 26 M. Pulp, papers, and books 59 11 9 20 39 N. Sundries 270 54 20 74 196 Total 2,024 654 220 874 1,150 Attempts have been made to show what the real effect of these changes has been by comparing the imports under the various schedules, and as- suming- that the changes and their importance were in proportion to the importations. Nothing could be more unjust in a Protective Tariff which also contains revenue provisions.. Some of the Tariff is made for the purpose of increasing the revenue by increasing importations which shall pay duty. Other items in the Tariff are made for the purpose of reducing competition, that is, by reducing importations, and, therefore, the question of the impor- tance of a change in rate can not in the slightest degree be determined by the amount of imports that take place. In order to determine the importance of the changes, it is much fairer to take the articles on which the rates of duty have been reduced and those on which the rates of duty have been increased, and then determine from statistics how large a part the articles upon which duties have been reduced play in the consumption of the coun- try, and how large a part those upon which the duties have been increased play in the consumption of the coun- try. Such a table has been prepared by Mr. Payne, than whom there is no one who understands better what the Tariff is and who has given more at- tention to the details of the schedule. Mainly Reductions. Now, let us take Schedule A — chem- icals, oils, and paints. The articles upon which the duty has boon do- creased are consumed in this country to the extent of $433,000,000. The articles upon which the duty has been increased are consumed in this coun- try to the extent of $11,000,000. Take Schedule B. The articles on which the duty has been decreased en- tered in the consumption of the coun- try to the amount of $128,000,000, and there has been no increase in duty on such articles. Take Schedule C — metals and their manufactures. The amount to whicli such articles enter into the consump- tion of the country is $1,221,000,000. whereas the articles of the same sched- ule upon which there has been an in- crease enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of only $37.- 000,000. Take Schedule D — lumber. The ar- ticles in this schedule upon which there has been a decrease enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $.560,000,000, whereas the ar- ticles under the same schedule upon which there has been an increase en- ter into its consumption to the extent of $31,000,000. In tobacco there has been no change. In agricultural products, those in which there has been a reduction of rates enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $483.- 000.000; those in which there has been an Increase enter into the consumption to the extent of $4,000,000. In the schedule of wines and liquors, the articles upon which there has been an increase, enter into the consumption PRESIDE^'T TAFT. 9 of the country to the extent of |462,- 000,000. In cottons there has been a change in the higher-priced cottons and an increase. There has been no increase in the lower-priced cottons, and of the increases the high-priced cottons enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $41,000,000. Schedule J — flax, hemp, and jute. The articles upon which there has been a decrease enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $22,- 000,000, while those upon which there has been an increase enter into the consumption to the extent of $804,000. In Schedule J as to wool, there has been no change. In Schedule L as to silk, the duty has been decreased on articles which enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $8,000,000, and has been increased on articles that enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $106,000,000. On paper and pulp the duty has been decreased on articles, including print paper, that enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $67,- 000,000, and increased on articles that enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $81,000,000. In sundries, or Schedule N. the duty has been decreased on articles that en- ter into the consumption of the coun- try to the extent of $1,719,000,000; and increased on articles that enter into the consumption of the country to the extent of $101,000,000. Increases in Luxuries. It will be found that in Schedule A the increases covered only luxuries — perfume_ries, pomades, and like ar- ticles; Schedule H — wines and liquors — which are certainly luxuries and are made subject to increase in order to increase the revenues, amounting to $462,000,000; and in Schedule L — silks — which are luxuries, certainly, $106,- 000,000, making a total of the consump- tion of those articles upon which there was an increase and which were lux- uries of $579,000,000, leaving a balance Decreases Cover Values of Nearly Five Billions. STATEMENT. Sched- _ Article. Consumption value, ule. Duties de- Duties in- creased, creased. A. Chemicals, oils, and paiuts $ 433,099,S46 $11,105,820 B. Earths, earthenware, and glassware 128,423,732 C. Metals, and manufactures of 1,221,956,620 37,675,804 D. Wood, and manufactures of 566,870,950 31,280,372 E. Sugar, molasses, and manufactures of '. 300,965,953 F. Tobacco, and manufactures of (no change of rates) G. Agricultural products and provisions 483,430,637 4,380,043 H. Spirits, wines, and other beverages 462,001,856 I. Cotton manufactures 41,622,024 J. Flax, hemp, jute, and manufactures of 22,127,145 804,445 K. Wool and manufactures of wool. (No production statistics available for articles affected by changes of rates.) L. Silks and silk goods 7,947,568 106,742,646 M. Pulp, papers, and books 67,628,055 81,486,466 N. Sundries 1,719,428,069 101,656,598 Total $4,951,878,575 $878,756,074 of increase on articles which were not Schedule A. Chemicals, including luxuries of value in consumption of perfumeries, pomades, and like article'^ S5 1 1 10*^ R90 only $272,000,000, as against $5,000,000,- schedule H. ' Wines' and' ii'q'uo'rs 462,001.856 000, representing the amount of ar- Schedule L. Silks 106,742,646 tides entering into the consumption ^^^^^ $5^^"^^^^ of the country, mostly necessities, upon which there has been a reduction This leaves a balance of increases of duties, and to which the 650 de- which are not on articles of luxury of creases applied. $298,905,752, as against decreases on Of the above increases the following about five billion dollars of consunip- are luxuries, being articles strictly of tion. voluntary use: Now, this statement shows as con- 10 PRESIDENT TAFT. clusively as possible the fact that there was a substantial downward revision on articles entering- into the general consumption of the country which can be termed necessities, for the propor- tion is 15,000,000,000, representing the consumption of articles to which de- creases applied, to less than $300,000,- 000 of articles of necessity to which the increases applied. No Promise to Revise Everything Down- ward. Now, the promise of the Republican platform was not to revise everything downward, and in the speeches which have been taken as interpreting that platform, which I made in the cam- paign, I did not promise that every- thing should go downward. What I promised was, that there should be many decreases, and that in some few things increases would be found to be necessary; but that on the whole I conceived that the change of condi- tions would make the revision neces- sarily downward — and that, I contend, under the showing which I have made, has been the result of the Payne bill. 1 did not agree, nor did the Republican party agree, that we would reduce rates to such a point as to reduce price's by the introduction of foreign competition. That is what the Free- Traders desire. That is what the reve- nue Tariff reformers desire; but that is not what the Republican platform promised, and it is not what the Re- publican party wished to bring about. To repeat tlie statement with which I opened this speech, the proposition of the Repu])lican party was to reduce rates so as to maintain a difference be- tween the cost of production abroad and the cost of production here, insur- ing a reasonable profit to the manu- facturer on all articles produced in this country; and the proposition to reduce rates and prevent their being excessive was to avoid the opportunity for monopoly and the suppression of competition, s|o that the excessive ftates could be taken advantage of to force prices up. No General Rise in Duties On Cotton. Now, it is said that there was not a reduction in a number of the sched- ules where tliere should liave been. It is sa'id tliat there was no reduction in the cotton schedule. There was not. The House and the Senate took evi- dence and found from cotton manu- facturers and from other sources that the rates upon the lower class of cot- tons were such as to enable them to make a decent profit — but only a de- cent profit — and they were contented with it; but that the rates on the higher grades of cotton cloth, by rea- son of court decisions, had been re- duced so that they were considerably below those of the cheaper grades of cotton cloth, and that by undervalua- tions and otherwise the whole cotton schedule had been made unjust and the various items were dispropor- tionate in respect to the varying cloths. Hence, in the Senate a new system was introduced attempting to inake the duties more specific rather than ad valorem, in order to prevent by judicial decision or otherwise a disproportionate and unequal opera- tion of the schedule. Under this schedule it was contended that there had been a general rise of all the du- ties on cotton. This was vigorously denied by the experts of the Treasury Department. At last, the Senate in conference consented to a reduction amounting to about 10 per cent on all the lower grades of cotton, and this reduced the lower grades of cotton substantially to the same rates as be- fore and increased the higher grades to what they ought to be under the Dingley law and what they were in- tended to be. Now, I am not going into the question of evidence as to whether the cotton duties were too high and wliether the difference be- tween the cost of production abroad and at home, allowing for a reasonable profit to the manufacturer here, is less thaia the duties wliich are imposed un- der the Payne bill. It was a question of evidence which Congress passed upon, after they heard the statements of cotton manufacturers and such other evidence as they could avail themselves of. I agree that the method of taking evidence and the determina- tion was made in a general way, and tliat tliere ought to be other methods of obtaining evidence and reaching a conclusion more satisfactory. Crockery Rates Necessary. Criticism has also l)cen made of the Plil^SlbENT TAFT. 11 crockery schedule and the failure to reduce that. The question whether it ought to have been reduced or not was a question of evidence which both committees of Congress toolc up, and both concluded that the present rates on croclcery were such as were needed to maintain the business in this coun- try. I had been informed tliat the crockery schedule was not high enough, and mentioned that in one of my campaign speeches as a schedule probably where there ought to be some increases. It turned out that the diffi- culty was rather in undervaluations than in the character of the schedule itself, and so it was not changed. It is entirely possible to collect evidence to attack almost any of the schedules, but one story is good until another is told, and I have heard no reason for sustaining the contention that the crockery schedule is unduly high. So w^ith respect to numerous details — items of not great importance — in which, upon what they regarded as sufficient evidence, the committee ad- vanced the rates in order to save a business which was likely to be de- stroyed. Tariff on Print Paper. I have never known a subject that will evoke so much contradictory evi- dence as the question of Tariff rates and the question of cost of production at home and abroad. Take the subject of paper. A committee was appointed by Congress a year before the Tariff sittings began, to determine what the difference was between the cost of production in Canada of print paper and the cost of production here, and they reported that they thought that a good bill would be one imposing $2 a ton on paper, rather than $6, the Dihgley rate, provided that Canada could be in- duced to take off the export duties and remove the other obstacles to the im- portation of spruce wood in this coun- try out of which wood pulp is made. An examination of the evidence satis- fied Mr. Payne — I believe it satisfied some of the Republican dissenters — that ?2, unless some change was made in the Canadian restrictions upon the exports of wood to this country, was much too low, and that $4 was only a fair measure of the difference between the cost of production here and in Canada. In other words, the $2 found by the special committee in the House was rather an invitation to Canada and the Canadian print-paper people to use their influence with their government to remove the wood restrictions by reducing the duty on print paper against Canadian print-paper mills. It was rather a suggestion of a diplo- matic nature than a positive statement of the difference in actual cost of pro- duction under existing conditions be- tween Canada and the United States. Changes as to Hides, Leather, Boots and Shoes. There are other subjects which I might take up. The Tariff on hides was taken off because it was thought that it was not necessary in view of the high price of cattle thus to protect the man who raised them, and that the duty imposed was likely to throw the control of the sale of hides into the hands of the meat packers in Chicago. In order to balance the reduction on hides, however, there was a great re- duction in shoes, from 25 to 10 per cent; on sole leather, from 20 to 5 per cent; on harness, from 45 to 20 per cent. So there was a reduction in the duty on coal of 33 1-3 per cent. All countervailing duties were re- moved from oil, naphtha, gasoline, and its refined products. Lumber was reduced from $2 to $1.25; and these all on articles of prime necessity. It is said that there might have been more. But there were many business interests in the South, in Maine, along the border, and especially in the far Northwest, which insisted that it would give great advantage to Canadian lumber if the reduction were made more than 75 cents. Mr. Pinchot, the Chief Forester, thought that it would tend to make better lumber in this country if a duty were retained on it. The lumber interests thought that $2 was none too much, but the reduc- tion was made and the compromise ef- fected. Personally I was in favor of free lumber, because I did not think that if the Tariff was taken off there would he much suffering among the lumber interests. But in the contro- versy the House and the Senate took a middle course, and who can say they were not justified? 12 PRESIDENT TAFT. The Wool Schedule. With respect to the wool schedule, I agree that it is too high and that it ought to have been reduced, and that it probably represents considerably more than the difference between the cost of production abroad and the cost of pro- duction here. The difficulty about the woolen schedule is that there were two contending factions early in the his- tory of Republican Tariffs, to wit, woolgrowers and the woolen manufac- turers, and that finally, many years ago, they settled on a basis by which wool in the grease should have 11 cents a pound, and by which allow- ance should be made for the shrink- age of the washed wool in the differ- ential upon woolen manufactures. The percentage of duty was very heavy — quite beyond the difference in the cost of production, which was not then re- garded as a necessary or proper limi- tation upon Protective duties. When it came to the question of reducing the duty at this hearing in this Tariff bill on wool, Mr. Payne, in the house, and Mr. Aldrich, in the Senate, although both favored reduc- tion in the schedule, found that in the Republican party the interests of the woolgrowers of the Far West and the interests of the woolen manufacturers in the East and in other States, re- flected through their representatives in Congress, was sufficiently strong to de- feat any attempt to change the woolen Tariff, and that had it been attempted it would have beaten the bill reported from either committee. I am sorry this is so, and I could wish that it had been otherwise. It is the one impor- tant defect in the present Payne Tariff bill and in the performance of the promise of the platform to reduce rates to a difference in the cost of pro- duction, with reasonable profit to the manufacturer. That it will increase the price of woolen cloth or clothes, I very much doubt. There have been increases by the natural increase in the price of wool the world over as an agricultural product, but this was not due to the Tariff, because the Tariff was not changed. The increase would therefore have taken place whether the Tariff would have been changed or not. The co.st of woolen cloths beliind the Tariff wall, through the effect of comp<'tition, has been greatly less than the duty, if added to the price, would have made it. Some Complaints. There is a complaint now by the woolen clothiers and by the carded woolen people of this woolen schedule. They have honored me by asking in circulars sent out by them that certain questions be put to me in respect to it, and asking why I did not veto the bill in view of the fact that the woolen schedule was not made in accord with the platform. I ought to say in re- spect to this point that all of them in previous Tariff bills were strictly in favor of maintaining the woolen schedule as it was. The carded woolen people are finding that carded wools are losing their sales because they are going out of style. People prefer wor- steds. The clothing people who are doing so much circularizing were con- tented to let the woolen schedule re- main as it was until very late in the Tariff discussion, long after the bill had passed the House, and, indeed, they did not grow very urgent until the bill had passed the Senate. This was because they found that the price of woolen cloth was going up, and so they desired to secure reduction in the Tariff which would enable them to get cheaper material. They themselves are Protected by a large duty, and I can not with deference to them ascribe their intense interest only to a deep sympathy with the ultimate consumers, so-called. But, as I have already said, I am quite willing to admit that allow- ing the woolen schedule to remain where it is, is not a compliance witli the terms of the platform as I inter- pret it and as it is generally under- stood. The Best Ever Passed. On the ^vhole, however, I am bound to say that I think the Payne Tariff bin .Is the best Tariflf bill that the Re- publlenn party ever passed; that In It the party has conceded the necessity for follo^vingr the changred conditions and reducing Tariff rates accordingly. This is a substantial achievement in the direction of lower Tariffs and downward revision, and it ought to be accepteil as such. Critics of tho bill utterly ignore tlie PRESIDENT TAFT. 18 very tremendous cuts that have been made in the iron schedule, which here- tofore has been subject to criticism in all Tariff bills. From iron ore, which was cut 75 per cent, to all the other items as low as 20 per cent, with an average of something like 40 or 50 per cent, that schedule has been reduced so that the danger of increasing prices through a monopoly of the business is very inuch lessened, and that was the chief purpose of revising the Tariff downward under Republican Protective principles. The severe critics of the bill pass this reduction in the metal schedule with a sneer, and say that the cut did not hurt the iron interests of the country. Well, of course, it did not hurt them. It was not expected to hurt them. It was expected only to reduce excessive rates, so that business should still be conducted at a profit, and the very character of the criticism is an indication of the general in- justice of the attitude of those who make it, in assuming that it was the promise of the Republican party to hurt the industries of the country by the reductions which they were to make in the Tariff, whereas it ex- pressly indicated as plainly as possible In the platform that all of the indus- tries were to be Protected against in- jury by foreign competition, and the promise only went to the reduction of excessive rates beyond what was necessary to Protect them. High Cost of Living Not Due to tfie Tariff. The high cost of living:, of which 50 per cent is consumed in food, 25 per cent in clothing:, and 25 per cent in rent and fuel, has not been produced by the Tariff, because the Tariff has remained the same while the increases have gone on. It is due to the change of conditions the world over. Living has increased everywhere In cost — in countries where there is Free-Trade and in countries where there is Pro- tection—and that increase has been chiefly seen in the cost of food prod- ucts. In other words, ^ve have had to pay more for the products of the farmer, for meat^ for grain, for every- thing that enters into food. No^% cer- tainly no one vtill contend that Protec- tion has increased the cost of food in this country, ^vhen the fact is that we have been the greatest exporters of food products in the world. It is only that the demand has increased beyond the supply, that farm lauds have not been opened as rapidly as the popula- tion, and the demand has increased. I am not saying that the Tariff does not increase prices in clothing and in building and in other items that enter Into the necessities of life, but what I wish to emphasize is that the recent increases in the cost of living In this country have not been due to the Tariff. We have a much higher stand- ard of living in this country than they have abroad, and this has been made possible by higher income for the workingman, the farmer, and all classes. Higher wages have been made possible by the encouragement of diversified industries, built up and fos- tered by the Tariff, Wi/J Not Destroy Industries. Now, the revision downward of the Tariff that I have favored will not, I hope, destroy the industries of the country. Certainly it is not intended to. All that it is intended to do, and that is what I wish to repeat, is to put the Tariff where it will Protect indus- tries here from foreign competition, but will not enable those who will wish to monopolize to raise prices by taking advantage of excessive rates beyond the normal difference in the cost of production. If the country desires Free-Trade, and the country desires a revenue Tariff and wishes the manufacturers all over the country to go out of busi- ness, and to have cheaper prices at tlie expense of the sacrifice of many of our manufacturing interests, then it ought to say so and ought to put the Democratic party in power if it thinks that party can be trusted to carry out any affirmative policy in favor of a revenue Tariff. Certainly in the dis- cussions in the Senate there was no great manifestation on the part of our Democratic friends in favor of re- ducing rates on necessities. They voted to maintain the Tariff rates on everything that came from their par- ticular sections. If we are to have Free-Trade, certainly It can not be had through the maintenance of Repub- lican majorities in the Senate and House and a Republican administra- tion. 14 PRESIDENT TAFT. Duiy of a Member of Congress. And now tlie question arises, what was the duty of a Member of Con- gress who believed in a downward re- vision greater than that which lias been accomplished, who thought that the wool schedules ought to be re- duced, and that perhaps there were other respects in which the bill could be improved? Was it his duty be- cause, in his judgment, it did not fully and completely comply with the prom- ises of the party platform as he inter- preted it, and indeed as I had inter- preted it, to vote against the bill? I am here to justify those who answer this question in the negative. Mr. Tawney was a downward revisionist like myself. He is a low-Tariff man, and has been known to be such in Congress all the time he has been there. He is a prominent Republican, the head of the Appropriations Committee, and when a man votes as I think he ought to vote, and an opportunity such as this presents itself, I am glad to speak in behalf of what he did, not in defense of it, but in support of it. This is a government by a majority of the people. It is a representative government. People select some 400 members to constitute the lower House and some 92 members to constitute the upper House through their legisla- tures, and the varying views of a ma- jority of the voters in eighty or ninety millions of people are reduced to one resultant force to take affirmative steps in carrying on a government by a system of parties. Without parties popular government would be abso- lutely impossible. In a party, those who join it, if they would make it ef- fective, must surrender their personal predilections on matters comparatively of less importance in order to accom- plish the good wliich united action on the most important principles at issue secures. Sfiou/d Maintain Party Solidarity. Now, I am not here to criticise those Republican Members and Senators whose views on the subject of the Tariff were so strong and intense that they believed it their duty to vote against their party on the Tariff bill. It is a question for each man to settle for himself. The question is whether he shall help maintain the party soli- daritj' for accomplishing its chief pur- poses, or whether the departure from principle in the bill as he regards it is so extreme that he must ^n conscience abandon the party. All I have to say is, in respect to Mr. Tawney's action, and in respect to my own in signing the bill, that I believed that the in- terests of the country, the interests of the party, required me to sacrifice the accomplishment of certain things in the revision of the Tariff which I had hoped for, in order to maintain party solidarity, which I believe to be much more important than the reduction of rates in one or two schedules of the Tariff. Had Mr. Tawney voted against the bill, and there had been others of the House sufficient in number to have defeated the bill, or if I had vetoed the bill because of the absence of a reduction of rates in the wool sched- ule, when there was a general down- ward revision, and a substantial one though not a complete one, we should have left the party in a condition of demoralization that would have pre- vented the accomplishment of purposes and a fulfillment of other promises which we had made just as solemnly as we had entered into that with re- spect to the Tariff. When I could say without hesitation that this is the best Tariff bill that the Republican party has ever passed, and therefore the best Tariff bill that has been passed at all. I do not feel that I could have recon- ciled any other course to my con- science than that of signing the bill, and I think Mr. Tawney feels the same way. Of course if I had vetoed the bill I would have received the applause of many Republicans who may be called low-Tariff Republicans, and who think deeply on that subject, and of all the Democracy. Our friends the Democrats would have applauded, and then laughed in their sleeve at the condition in which the party would have been left; but, more than this, and waiving considerations of party, where would the country have been had the bill been vetoed, or been lost by a vote? It would have left the question of the revision of the Tariff open for further discussion during the next session. It would have suspended the settlement of all our business down to a known basis upon which prosperity could pro- ceed and investments be made, and it would have held up the coming of PRESIDENT TAFT. 15 prosperity to this country certainly for a year and probably longer. These are the reasons why Mr. Tawney voted for the bill. These are the reasons why I signed it. Additional Reasons. But there are additional reasons why the bill ought not to have been beaten. It contained provisions of the utmost importance in the interest of this coun- try in dealing with foreign countries and in the supplying of a deficit which under the Dingley bill seemed inev- itable. There has been a disposition in some foreign countries taking advan- tage of greater elasticity in their sys- tems of imposing Tariffs and of making regulations to exclude our products and exercise against us undue discrim- ination. Against these things we have been helpless, because it required an act of Congress to meet the' difficulties. It is now proposed, by what is called the maximuin and minimum clause, to enable the President to allow to come into operation a maximum or penaliz- ing increase of duties over the normal or minimum duties whenever in his opinion the conduct of the foreign countries has been unduly discrim- inatory against the United States. It is hoped that very little use may be required of this clause, but its pres- ence in the law and the power con- ferred upon the Executive, it is thought, will prevent in the future such undue discriminations. Certainly this is most important to our export- ers of agricultural products and manu- factures. "Useless to Talk of Another Revision of the Tariff." Now, I think it is utterly'- useless, as I think it would be greatly distress- ing to business, to talk of another re- vision of the Tariff during the present Congress. I should think that it would certainly take the rest of this admin- istration to accumulate the data upon which a new and proper revision of the Tariff might be had. By that time the whole Republican party can ex- press itself again in respect to the matter and jDring to bear upon its Rep- resentatives in Congress that sort of public opinion which shall result in solid party action. I am glad to see that a number of those wlio thought it their duty to vote against the bill insist that they are still Republicans and intend to carry on their battle in favor of lower duties and a lower re- vision within the lines of the party. That is their right and, in their view of things, is their duty. It is vastly better that they should seek action of the party than that they should break off from it and seek to organize another party, which would probably ' not result in accomplishing anything more than merely defeating our party and inviting in the opposing party, which does not believe, or says that it does not believe, in Protection. I think that we ought to give the pres- ent bill a chance. After it has been operating for two or three years, we can tell much more accurately than we can to-day its effect upon the indus- tries of the country and the necessity for any amendment in its provisions. I have tried to state as strongly as I can. but not more strongly than I think the ife,cts justify, the importance of not disturbing the business inter- ests of this country by an attempt in this Congress or the next to make a new revision. In the Matter of Tariff Revision Has the Republican Party Kept Faith with the People? Speech of President Taft at the Lincoln Anniversary Dinner of the Republican Club of the City of New York, Feb- ruary 12, 1910. From the Congressional Record of February 14, 1910. Mr. President, Gentlemen of tlie Re- publican Club, and Fellow-Guests: The birthday of the man whose mem- ory we celebrate to-night is an appro- priate occasion for renewing our ex- pressions of respect and affection for the Republican party, and our pledges to keep the part which it plays in the history of this country as high and as useful as it was during the adminis- tration of Abraham Lincoln. The trials which he had to undergo as President, the political storms which the party had to weather during the civil war, the divisions in the party itself between the radical antislavery 36 PRESIDENT TAFT. element and those who were most con- servative in observing the constitu- tional limitations, are most interesting reading-, and serve to dwarf and mini- mize the trials through which the Re- publican party is now passing, and re- store a sense of proportion to those who allow themselves to be daunted and discouraged in the face of a loss of popular confidence thought to be indicated by the tone of the press. In what respect has the Republican party failed in its conduct of the Gov- ernment and the enactment of laws to perform its duty? It was returned to power a year ago last November by a very large majority after a campaign in which it made certain promises in its platform, and those promises it has either substantially complied with, or it is about to perform within the pres- ent session of Congress. Let us take up these promises in order: In the Republican platform of last year, upon which the campaign was made, appears The Following Plank in Regard to the Tariff. The Republican party declares unequiv- ocally for the revision of the Tariff by a special session of Congress immediately following the inauguration of the next President, and commends the steps al- ready taken to this end in the work as- signed to the appropriate committees of Congress which are now investigating the operation and effect of existing schedules. In all Tariff legislation the true principle of Protection is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will equal the difference between the cost of pro- duction at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American in- dustries. We favor the establishment of maximum and minimum rates to be ad- ministered by the President under limi- tations fixed in the law, the maximum to be available to meet discriminations by