OCR Text |
Show I I liLUblL 1 1 K LArLinMU ITaftTeiIsWhyHeVetoed Tariff Bill of Last Congress Oraud Rpplds, Mich., Sept 21. President Pres-ident Taft mado his Qrst speech of his western trop on the tariff and his vetoes of the wool, cotton and fanners free-list bills hero today. Tho President attacked the Democrats and "insurgent" Ropnbl leans In the senate sen-ate and house who put those bills through congress at tho special session: ses-sion: defended his own course in vetoing them and declared that ho-was ho-was unalterably opposed to revision of the tarlq except-, on Information secured by the tariff' board. oH defined de-fined clearly his own position with i regird to tariff revision and made It , plain that, even if political defeat stared him In tho face, he would not rjter his policy. The Presldont predicted hat revising revis-ing tho tariff with "blacksmith tools,"" such as he said the coalition of D?m-ocrats D?m-ocrats and "insurgents" used will lead Inevitably to a revulsion of feeling and a recdrrencc of the higher rates and the "old system of high tariff." The President's speech follows: The Vetoes of the Woolen, Free Llot, and Cotton Bills. JK My Fellow Citizens: I am going to '& tell you In as simple a way as 1 j 5 can, why r vetoed the three tariff bills 5r which Congress submitted to mo for i I ' signature at the closo of this extra ' f session. I called the session to se- cure tho enactment in law of the Can- I adian reciprocity treaty. This was ; i dene on July 22. "Thereafter, the wool , ' hill, tho free-list bill, and tho cotton j bill were presented to me for slgna-$ slgna-$ . . fure. and I returned them without my approval, and explained my rea- sons for so doing in a special messaso on each bill. What I say here will be In largo 5L part a resume of those messages, C with some additional suggestions that J. the less formal character of this ad-Mi ad-Mi y dress permits, I am not going to ?; discuss the Payne bill, except to say i ll that the controversy over Its merits M and demerits developed a very strong m to Fentlment among Republicans, and, In- depd, among many Democrats, that a bureau or commission or board of t- 7 competent persons should be const!-' i Ivtuted to make Investigation Into thp a Ipacts concerning the dutlablo articled it'iln tho tariff, and to report them In ;: 'i such a way that Congress and the if I nubile might be reliably advised cV the probable effect of any proposed i revision of the tariff in the future. It was properly felt that even when , I full opportunity for hearings were gtv- . ' en as thoy had been by tho commit-. commit-. tees of tho House and Senate, In tho case of tho Payne bill, the advocates of the protected interests would have ' the advantage over tho consuming !' " public, who would not organize to ; secure and present tho evidence In ( : their behalf for lower duties ncoded to secure a just judgment The Payno bill offered an opportunity to mo to " i appoint a hoard of competent peril per-il ft sonG to assist mo in the administra-i administra-i lion of tho revenue laws and espocial- f lv of the maximum and minimum S cla'ise of that act; and the revenue JT laws wero of sufficient latitude to k enablo me to direct this board to ,'J - make a "glossary" of tho tariff termrj 1 1 and a kind of oncvclopedla which ;' -I would furnish a guide to the undcr- 3 J '? rtaudlng of tho tariff, and alBO to pro-J pro-J J jr reed to determlno tho comparative s J ; difference between the cost of pro- i ductlon of dutiable articles under the 'i various tariff schedules in this coun-I coun-I '! try and abroad. 1 I At tho extra session of 1909, Con-I Con-I gress had "given me $75,000 which I " could spend for this purpose; at Ui i 1 regular session of the same Congress E1;. the Sixty-first, tho appropriation was m I ; enlarged to $250,000, to cover cx-I cx-I penses down to July 1, 1911. Moan- , ? ; time, tho movement for a permanent i?, $ Tariff Commission or Board to effect j,' ft those general purposes acquired great J , n momentum. Business associations tho 4 ! country over united to form a' special 4 , society for tho promotion of such leg- j islatlon, and the campaign for it was V I carried on with both Houses of Con- i . gross. I gave tho project as strong support as possible, and made a number num-ber of public addresses In support of it, and sont a specific recommendation of the plan in a congressional mos-page. mos-page. The Republican conventions of 2S States adopted resolutions strongly advocating a statutory Tariff Commission, Com-mission, and deprecating any future revision until needed evidence had hepn gathered and impartial conclusions conclu-sions drawn as to the facts upon which such revision could be properly, made. The Tariff Board. Of course with Republicans, In order or-der to securo a proper revision on tho basis to which thoy were committed, com-mitted, it was essential to. know from an unbiased source he difference between be-tween the costs of foreign and home production, for this .was the limit of protection which tho moderate protectionists pro-tectionists among them and the last party platform had set. They did not wish to Injure the Important industries indus-tries of tho .country by taking away from them tho measure of protection needed to onnblfl them to live acalnst foreign competition, but they did Intend In-tend in the next revision not to give them more than this. Of course the Democrats recognized no such measure of protection as just, but many of them contended that such a commission "was necessary to secure the facts upon which a proper tariff for revenue only could be framed. The result was that by Republican Re-publican and Democratic votes, and among the Republicans the so-callod progressive or Insurgent Republicans were the most earnest in its support, a billcreatlng a permanont Tarlrr board of five, to be appointed by tho President, with power to summon witnesses wit-nesses and securo their evidence under un-der oath, was passed by the House No more than thrco members of the same palitical party could be appointed appoint-ed as members of tho board. The Investigations In-vestigations to he undertaken and tho reports to be made wore set out In the act and included' as proper subject sub-ject matter the comparative costs of home and foreign pi'oductlon. Tho hoard was to report to the President and to Congress as either directed. The bill went to the Senate and was there amended In a few' unimportant particulars, one requiring confirmation confirma-tion of the appointment of the members mem-bers by the Senate and another modifying mod-ifying in some respect tho inquisitorial inquisitor-ial powers of the board Theso changes necessitated a return of the bill to the House for Its concurrence, in the amendments. A large majority favored concurrence, but a small minority min-ority was able to boat the bill by filibustering fili-bustering in the last hours of the session. ses-sion. In the uncertainty as to the passage of the bill, both Houses had provided $225,000 for me to continue the tariff .board then existing if the hill for tho other board failed of passage. In this appropriation, bUl, the statWrv Tariff -Board, if established wa6 directed to investigate and report upon Schedule K on wool and woolens by December 1, 1911. This direction was the result of an amendment offered of-fered by a Democratic Senator. ' (Continued on Pago Two.) H J. H , ' PRESIDENT EXPLAINING H (Continued from Page One.) ) t " H Make Up of Tariff Board. H' ' Upon tho failure of the bill for a B statutory board, and in an earnest cf- Hj fort to enable Congress to act with Hl accurate knowledge on Schedule K, Hf and, indeed on Schedule I on cot- B tou manufactures I Issued an order f I to the tariff hoard already appointed, l to continuo the nccessaiy inventiga- Hl tlons of these schedules and to re- H ort upon the same on December 1 Hl next In order to make as good a sub- HT stltute for the Btatutory tariff board H as I could, I added two competent H I Democrats to the board. Tho board H consists .of two professors of eco- H nomics of tho highest standing, one H ' at Yale and one at the University H of Virginia, a former assistant secre- H tory of the treasury In charge of cus- Hl torn s, tho proprietor and editor of an K agricultural and stock raising news- I paper" an authority on these tub-Jeots tub-Jeots and a former Democratic congressman con-gressman of great ability and expcrl- ence from Georgia. Except tho for- H iner assistant secretary, who is a Re- Hj publican, and the former congross- H man, it is hard to say that the mem- H bers have any politics at all, cer- Hi talnly none which will prevent lmpar- H. tlal investigation and judgment They H' are to report on the "glossary" and H tho facts as to the comparative cost H of foreign and domestic production H alter investigations made by experts in H I their employ. They have 80 persons H under them working hard to .complete H'i the work marked out for them. H ' I I have gone oyer wjth care tho hls- H; I . tory of tho movement for a tariff board in order to show how fully committed com-mitted I am to the proposition that Wo ought uot to havo any revision of a schedule of the tariff without accurate ac-curate information as to tho operation opera-tion and effect of tho proposed changes, and further tq show that in this view I have had In tho past the hearty support not only of the regular reg-ular Republicans, but also, and even with more ejnphasls, those who call themselves Piogrcsslvc Republicans. Second, I wish to point out that all Republicans of whatever shade are committed to the maintenance of our protected Industries to the point or retaining duties on important artlclos which shalL equal the difference In tho cost of production at homo and abroad. Third. Except for the extra session ses-sion called only to pabs upon tho reciprocity bill, the first time that tho Sixty-second "congress could consider con-sider and pass upon tariff schedules would bo In December, and at that tjme its predecessor, by consent of both, parties, had fixed as the proper time at which a full report as to the most objectlonablo schedule ought to be reported. "With tho monoy granted grant-ed me by congress I had provided a board, nonpartisan, and with tho Bame personnel as the statutory bpard would have had, to make a roport not only upon tho wool but nlso upon cotton. cot-ton. Although many of the Democrats had aKsIstcd In tho support of tho statutory tariff board bill and had advocated such a means of securing accurato information in nrospect of the probable operation of the proposed revision, the House at once began to make a record for political purposes pur-poses by passing three tariff bills, tho wool bll, tho free-list bill, and the cotton bill. They gave no public hearings of any kind on either of thoso blllb and they presented no satisfactory sat-isfactory information upon which tho effect of any of them upon tho industries in-dustries involved could be judged. Tjiolr Investigations may have been sufficient to batlsfy the conscience of n Uirlff-for-rcvonue man who bclloio.s in any reduction, however great, of existing ex-isting duties, hut for ono pledged as I am-to maintain a tariff high enough to enablo existing Industvi.es to live, the case Is different. Tho Tariff on Wool. Tho wool bill proposed a leveuue duty of 20 per cent upon taw wool instead of 11 cents a pound, a reduction reduc-tion of considerably more than SO per cent of tho present duty, and an aerage duty tot 50 per cent on woolen cloth and manufactures, This was avowedly a tariff for revenue and was not drawn for the purpose of protecting protect-ing the Industries. It passed the House and went to the Senate, where an Insurgent Republican senator proposed pro-posed a substitute in which the duty on wool of the first class was fixed at 40 per cent, and of a second class, or carpet wools, at 10 per cent, and tho average percentage on the woolen wool-en manufactures was made CO per cent ad valorem It was claimed by its author to be a protection bill. It was never submitted to a committee, no evidence was ever taken In regard to It, and it was evolved from tho independent Investigations of a single Senator. A majority of the Insurgents and the Democrats In the Senate compromised com-promised on a bill which made tho tax on raw wool, first class, 35 per cent; second class, 10 per cent; and the avorage duty on woolens, 55 per cent. The bill, agalnBt tho vote or nearly all of the regular Republicans Republic-ans and some lnsurgont Republicans, passed the Senate and was sent to conference who'ro a bill was agreed upon in which the duty was 29 per cent on raw wool, and an average of 49 per cent on woolens. This bill had the effect of raising the duty on carpet wools, as llxed in tho Senate, Sen-ate, 19 por cent, and as fixed In tho House, 9 per cent. Hero was the first case presented to mo. There w,as nothing In the record In either the House or Senate from which I could obtain any Information as to the ef; feet of this bill upon the wool and woolen industry of this country. I submit that the history of Its making shows no principle whatever In the bill except a compiomlse between two opposing principles for the purposo of passing the bill, without any Indication Indi-cation as to its effect on the Industry to which- It applies. This bill reduced the duty on wool-ons wool-ons to an averago of 4D per cent, with a duty on tho raw-material wool of 29 per cenL Tho Wilson bill, passod In 1S94, had roduced tho duty to 50 per cent, with no duty on the raw wool at all, a much more favorable arrangement arrange-ment to tho manufacturers than In the present bill, and yet tho years of the Wilson bill were years of disaster to tho woolen manufacturers. It may bo that other causes than the tariff contributed to the failure of woolen mills in tho time of the Wilson bill, and It may well be that conditions In tho woolen busluess bave changed so that it does not need as much protection pro-tection as then; but I had no adequate ade-quate Information, and had been furnished fur-nished none, upon which I could say that the bill piesentcd to mo was In accord with the Republican platform of protection upon which I waB elected, elect-ed, and. to which I am In honor bound to square by official act and policy. In the absence of such adequate Information, In-formation, and with the prospect of securing se-curing it In three months, It became my bounden duty to withhold my approval ap-proval o7 the bill. What was the necessity nec-essity for such groat haste in passing the bill at an extra bosslon balled for another purposo. The bill as It passed the House provided it should go into effect January 1, 1912 The bill as it passod the Senate contained a similar provision. Whn the hill went Into conference, 1 am Informed that tho suggestion waB made that the date of January 1, 1912, for Its taking offect would furnish a strong argument for delaying Its passage until un-til after December 1, when the tarlft , board could report The date of taking tak-ing effect was thereupon changed to October 15, 1911. Such oare was not taken with the frco-llst bill or tho cotton bill, both of which were made 16 take effect January 1, 1912. Knows Tariff Is Too High. Schedule K had been Inforce so long and its percentages wero so high In many respects that I had not hesitated In times past to say that It J ought to be reduced, and to' explain how It camo not to be reduced In the Pnyno bill as it ought to havo been. But it Is one thing to know that a schedule of this sou is too high, and It j Is a very different thing In such a I complicated schedule to know upon I what Items the leductlons should be made and hew great tho reductions ought to be. If the pllnclple to which I am committed, and to which tho party Is committed In the strong terms of the resolutions, which T have quoted above, was to bo observed as a policy at all, hero was the occasion, for fol lowing Jt If I had allowed the wool bill to become a law, tbe progress made in public opinion toward n better bet-ter method of revising tho tariff would havo been entirely lost and the policy cast to tho winds. Some defense is made of tho bill on tbe ground that the committee on ways and means had considered It carefully In committee for a month or more, the point Is that the bill Is prepared Is not this bill. It Is changed In all of Its Tates and materially ma-terially changed to meet by compromise compro-mise a bill that was never In committee com-mittee at all, and the blending was done, as was said, with "blacksmith's tools " The House bill was a free trnde or at loast an anti-protection bill; what the hybrid was, who could tell? In slew of the enormouB value of the wool and woolen Industry which might bo disastrously atfected by the bill, was It asking too much to delay tho bill, under the circumstances, for 90 days merely to secure accurate Information? In-formation? I thought not Indeed, I could find no argument which would satisfy my conscience In signing the bill. Free-Llst Bill. The free-list bill was called the "farmers' free list.'' for the purpose of giving an impression that it was passed to compensate the farmers for some sort of injury supposed to be done by the Canadian reciprocity treaty. trea-ty. This reason was finally repudiated repudi-ated by the leader of the Democracy on tho floor of the House of Representatives, Repre-sentatives, and Is certainly not true There waa nothing In the Canadian reciprocity bill that required any compensation to the farmers, for In a very short period after actual operation opera-tion It will appear that they, as well as evorybody else, havo boon im-porved im-porved In condition by our larger trade wlthCanada. But the bill was fiamed nnd came to me In a form calculated to mislead as to Its effect. In tho first clause all agricultural implements were declarod to be free, and a great many were named These same implements imple-ments wero named in the Payne bill, , and were made free In that bill from ' any country which permitted our agricultural ag-ricultural Implements to enter It with- ' out duty. This oponed to England tho market of the United States for agricultural ag-ricultural Implements. 'As a matter ' of fact tho price of agricultural Implements Im-plements in America Is cheaper, as shown by n repoit of the board of trade relations of the state department, depart-ment, to tho American farmers thin to any farmers In the world. England Eng-land Is the one country that exports agricultural Implemonts to any great extent, and bo successful Is the competition com-petition against, her In this country of American agricultural Implements that practically vory few havo come in from England. This first clause, therefore, of the free-list bill offers no boon to the farmers at all, although al-though appaiently drawn for the purposo pur-poso of inducing them to think so It does contain some very genoral words at tho close of the specially mentioned articles which by interpretation interpre-tation might bo made to include 150 different articles used on tho farm, but used In other ocations also. And thoso articles tho hammers, tholj tools, tho cutlery, and the machliieryjMjj of various kinds are now dutiabJeMftj under the metal schedule. To adm,tLBL them under this clause would bo toSg-destroy toSg-destroy entirely the symmetry of thoMpy metal schedule and produce such aJBj jconfusiou as seriously to lnterferejjj' (Continued on Pago Three.) tK 8 f PRESIDENT EXPLAINING 1 I 1 fl , (Continued from Page Two.) I I witb the administration of the tarlfr ' lact j ', Aonther clauso provides for the ad- liK mission of barbed-wire fencing free, Band then all wire and other material Hk which could be used for fencing, and , 111 Includes wire rods and wlro ropes. To I let In barbed-wlro fencing alone would I fto be unimportant to producers, but the j Hf framing of the amending clause Is j Wm such that If It were to go Into law ! ' would utterly destroy the principle I B. 4 which was followed In Its framing and mm- would make free of duty some of the Hiv most highly wrought articles under the Wf- metal schedule not used by farmers at Hi-all. Then there Is a clause admlt-Hf admlt-Hf ting Jute and cotton bagging free, and MM. materials from which made, which ki would allow common cotton cloth tox mm. come In free for any purpose, although BK under the cotton schedule even-as BRfcpropoEed to be amended by this Con-BygreflB. Con-BygreflB. cotton cloth Is to pay a. certain IJ amount of duty. The bill also puts Bl boots and shoes of all kinds on the tlMfreo list. It did not put on the free Mlist, except some kinds of leathor, tho f materials which went Into shoes. In 1 other words, It put on tho free list tho llnlshed product and continued the tax on raw naterlals. This would bo such a burden on our manufactur- ers that Its injtttlco must appeal to j everyone. Tho fact Is that under the Dlngley bill Imported shoes were taxed 25 por cent ad valorem, while In tho I Payne bill tho duty was reduced from 23 per cent to 10 per cent, the duty on ! hides was reduced from 15 per cent j to nothing, and tho duty on leather j was reduced to 5 por cont. No evl-! evl-! donee was taken as to what effect i this putting of shoes on the free list would have on the very highly Important Im-portant shoe Industry of the country, coun-try, and as It violated the first principles prin-ciples of justice In a tariff, namely, of putting the finished product on tho free list and taxing tho materials, It did not and could not commend Itself to one who was pledged to the support of a moderate protective tariff. tar-iff. Meat and Flour. Finally, the free list has two clauses claus-es affecting meat and flour. As they went through tho House they put meat on the free list and flour on tho free list- In the Senate, however, an amendment amend-ment was put on limiting the operation opera-tion of these two clauses to Imports from those countries with which wo Inve a reciprocal relation and which admit certain of our agricultural products pro-ducts free. This limitation made Canada tho only country which would be affected by the provisions of tho clause. Now, in our negotiations with Canada for reciprocity we attempted to secure free meat and free flour. Canada would not consent to this, because be-cause she feared the effect of our competition with her meat and flour. This showed that importations of meat and flour from Canada without duty would not have any effect to lower the price In this country or either in normal times. But this free-list free-list bill was giving to Canada something some-thing for nothing. This Congress at the close of the act approving the Canadian reciprocity agreement directed di-rected me to continue negotiations and expand Its terms, and yet In these j provisions It proposed to deprive mo of usingjthc concessions of free meat and free flour to secure concessions from Canada. Thus the bill was so loosely drawn, and It was drawn on such a wrong principle, and with so little Information, and It purported to do so. many things which It did not do, that I had no hesitation In vetoing it. Finally, the cotton bill came to me. This bill differed from the others In being a bill for which tho Democrats Demo-crats alonp, and not the Insurgent Republicans, were -responsible. It had passed the House on the report of the Ways and Means Committee made without the taking of any evidence of persons in the manufacture or anyone else, It had completely changed the method of classifying cottons, classifying them according to the threads in the yarn Instond of by tho threads of the piece and tho specific duty upon the square yard, as In the present bill. This was a most Important change, and It had been aJor-ted after an Informal communication in writing with the Bureau of Standards and aftor an adverse ad-verse report by the Treasury experts. The bill was adopted avowedly as a came to the Senate and was pnssod in tho form in which it passed the House, except that certain amendments amend-ments wero added One was an amendment cutting down the metal schedule by a sweeping reduction of 30 per cent, and the other was an amendment of the chemical schedule with a purported reduction ad valorem of 25 per cent. So hastily was tho bill thrown together, so little attention paid to the consideration of It In the Senate, especially in the chemical schedule, that the most ludicrous re suits were reached. In the first place, although the amendments radically changed the metal and chemical schedules no change was made in the title, which still read, "An act to reduce duties on cotton manufactures." manufac-tures." An amendment was introduced intro-duced In order to make certain that in thq cotton and chemical schedules there must be a reduction of all rates to not more than 30 per cent ad valorem, val-orem, but It was so placed In the act that by Us language It could only apply to goods already in tho customhouse, custom-house, upon which duty had not been paid. The calculations by which tho specific duties In the chemical schedule sched-ule were transmitted into ad valorem rates and then reduced 25 per cent were exceedingly faulty. The Senator who proposed the reductions said that ho had secured tho services of a statistician at the treasury department, depart-ment, who had done the work as ho told him to do It, and that that was all heknew about It. Senator Williams, a Democratic member of tho committee on finance of tho senate, objected to this method of adopting a most important schedule The chemical schedule is the first schedule In the list. It has S5 items, and of these CO have specific duties. It affects many millions of imports. Nevertheless, the bill went through, and It wont back to the House and was submitted to two days' examination examina-tion by the ways and means committee com-mittee of that body. Experts Examined Bill. Then It passed the House under a rule that permitted no amendments whatever. I had the bill examined by experts, especially with respect to the chemical schedule, and oven in M.rt ..w.. oVirtJ Mmn T Yinrl T frtllnH WK IW) Oliv.1 u null uuti, i ivsu..-. tho greatest confusion produced by tho amendment. Upon a number of the articles the reduction was greatly moro than the proposed 25 per cent, reaching In some cases 75 and 100 per cent, and on other articles. Instead of being a decrease there was an increase all the way from 5 to 100 per cent. The hill was supposed to ho a concession to the North Carolina cotton interests, and to bo Intended to chcapon the bleaching, dyeing, and coloring 'materials needed in that business. bus-iness. The verv comical effoct of the bill as amended was that instpad of reducing the duty on blenching powder 25 per cent, It Increased it 40 per cent- But even a more serious defect In tho bill was in those changes affecting the alcoholic compounds contained con-tained In Tpur or five items, in respect to which -In the Payne bill and In all previous tariff bills, in order to prevent the use of these items to import im-port alcohol nt a small duty, compensatory com-pensatory ' duties had been imposed of about (0 cents a pound, or $! CO a gallon. Under the provisions of the new bill, these alcoholic compounds nnd articles containing alcohol would como in at a duty, making the tax on alcohol from S o 10 cents a gallon, while the lntornatlonal-roveuue tax on alcohol In this country Is $1.10 per proof gallon, and tho duty imposed on it as nn import Is $2.G0 a gallon. The opportunities for tho introduction of cheap alcohol and tho danger of evasion, evas-ion, or tho breaking down of the in-iornal-revonue law by such a chango In tho chemical schedule, I need hard-,: ly elaborate The bill was Impossible and of course I vetoed 1L There was In the passage of the bill. In tho amendments, and in the general treatment treat-ment an indication that the support of the bill was baaed rather on a desire to make a political record In favor of lower duties than upon a serious proposal to change tho law. At least this Is the only explanation that can be offered of the careless, inartificial and altogether unsatisfactory unsatisfac-tory character of the three bills. In Favor of Tariff Reduction. I have gotne Into this matter at considerable con-siderable detail in order that my position posi-tion with respect to these bills and the general treatment of tho tariff may be understood. I am In favor of the reduction of the tariff wherever It can be done and still give a living measure of protection to those Industries Indus-tries of the country that need It. But I insist that wo have reached 'now a point In the history of tariff making when everyone ought to realize that the tariff should not bo changed and business disturbed, except upon Information Infor-mation which shall enable us to pass bills that disturb It leastv Our whole business system rests upon the protective-tariff bosls. The real hope of men who are in favor of lowering the duties Is to pursue the policy of securing se-curing accurate Information to keep the tariff rates down as low as possible possi-ble consistent with the life of the business prottected. The natural operation op-eration of the tariff under those conditions con-ditions and American ingenuity Is to Continue to reduce the coflt of production, pro-duction, and that In Itself will. secure, If we adhere to the policy, a reduction of the tariff rates from time to time; but to cut them now "with blacksmith's black-smith's tools," Is to Invite in the next two or four years a revulsion of feeling, feel-ing, and then a recurrence of higher rates and the old system of high tariffs. This I would deprecate, and so Xar as I can with the powers given me by the Constitution, I propose to stop such movement and to Fecuro a reduction In accordance with tho principles of the Republican platform, and on Information accurate and impartial. im-partial. If that policy Is not approved by the electorate, then, of course, those of us who are now In office must give way to men who will carry out a different policy; but while wo are In office our position ought clearly to be, understood. We follow this policy pol-icy not only because we are pledged to It, but because we believe it right, because we believe that a full discussion dis-cussion and a clear perception on tho part of the people will convince them ultimately to approve and adopt it. |