OCR Text |
Show .SUTHERLAND'S SUBTERFUGES. It is curious to son that Senator Sutherland comes homo with the sub-turfuge sub-turfuge in his mouth that the liopnbli-can'part.v liopnbli-can'part.v did not agree lo: revise .tho tariff downward, lie says il agreed to revise tho tariff, but said nothing about revising il downward. But revision re-vision downward was the only thing Unit was even thought, about, nothing was possible to say about revising it otherwise. It was understood fully that it was to bo a revision downward, nol upward, nor 10 leave it as it was. If anyone had suggested, and could Jiavo porsuaded the people to believe it, that tariff revision meant revision upward, the Hopublican party would havo gone down lo defeat. President Taft took it as a matter of course tlinl the tariff rpvision was to be downward; at Milwaukee, Mil-waukee, September 2-lth, at Dps .Moines. September 20th. W0S. and at Cincinnati, Cincin-nati, September 22ud. 100S. President Taft was explicit in his declaration that tho Jiepublienu platform meant tariff revision downward. Any one who might have contradicted President Taft at that lime and havo said that revision of tho tariff did not mean revision re-vision downwnrd as Mr. Taft continually contin-ually said it did, that man would havo been denounced ns an enemy .of . tho Republican party and a personal assailant assail-ant of President Tnft's good faith. And that is truo todn To argue now that tariff revision did not mean tariff revision re-vision downward, loses sight not only of the se'ntiment of the county at the time, but of the wholo tendency of the campaign. Argumentation that tho plodge o' tariff revision did not mean revision downward, is beneath tho dignity of a slump speaker, to "say nothing of- a 'United States Senator. And when Mr. Sutherland attempts lo argue that the revision was reallj downward and not Upward, he makes tho double mistake, first of claiming revision did not mean revision downwnrd; nm1 second, .of showing that rovision was downward after all. As to tho latter, no one sooms to know just how the uew tariff is go ing to operate; tho Treasury Department Depart-ment seems to bo ver3 much at sea in attempting at-tempting to answer questions asked by collectors of customs; but tho Bureau of Statistics, which undoubted is tho best poslod, and is likeh to givo the most exact preliminary information of any authority in tho United Slates On this question, sn3s that tho revision is upward. And this is corroborated by Mr. Aldrich himself, who sa3s that the bill will yield a good deal more revenue than tho Dingley bill did. But in t lie manner and upon the principle upon which this new tariff bill was framed, it is impossible to say how it can pro-duco pro-duco more revenue if the rates have not been revised upward; becauso- the same principle is at the bottom of both, but tho new bill carries out tho monopolistic mo-nopolistic propositions and opportunities opportuni-ties to a far more offensive degree than did tho Dingley bill; consequently it represents' a double treachery to the people, first by falsely pretending to revise the tariff downward as the people peo-ple expected it lo do; second,' in maintaining main-taining or making even worse the same old schedules wherein monopolies and combines are enabled to seize tho coun-tr3 coun-tr3 by the throat and praclico their extortions ex-tortions upon tho people under the guise, guidance and protection of law. |