It is an American policy. It seems to be acquiesced in by a great majority of the American people. It is true there are some looking for protection to industries who do not come out into the open, who declare themselves in favor of a tariff for revenue, disguising, or trying to disguise, their real belief in a tariff for protection. We have advanced some in the last twenty years in this regard, and now I do not believe that there is a man within the sound of my voice that would rise in his place and say that he is in favor of "tearing down every customhouse in the United States from turret to foundation stone."

Here Mr. Payne spoke in eulogy of the Dingley bill.

While it is true that this bill has not brought a surplus during every year of its existence, the expenditures have increased beyond the anticipation of any of the originators of the Dingley law. We did not dream then of the Spanish war. Much less did we imagine the increased expenditures that would come after that war had ceased, with great victory and honor to the national arms and the national flag, but it brought increased burdens and increased responsibilities. We jumped forward to a place as a world power without a peer in the world. Our relations with other countries were changed. We not only changed the map, but we changed our responsibility with the foreign nations, and with that change came the burdens; the burden of an increasing navy, which seems to be one of the most popular things we have among the citizens of the United States; an increased army, increased coast defences.

The grand result of the Dingley bill to-day is that, having paid all the expenses of the war and all the expenses incurred thereby, and having expended a large amount for the Panama Canal, there is a surplus of $25,000,000 for the entire period. But time makes changes. It becomes necessary to have a revision of our revenue laws. There are two controlling reasons for this revision.

Since the time of the enactment of the Dingley bill other nations have been adopting the maximum and minimum tariff, with a lower tariff at protected rates and a maximum tariff much higher-even 100 per cent. over the minimum rates, scarcely ever below 40 per cent.—although some of the articles of these maximum and minimum tariff countries are at the same rates in both maximum and minimum schedules.

Then came the tug of war. Then came the hard part of the proposition. We saw our rivals for the trade of the world get

ting conventional rates that we could not get, partially because of our system that under the Constitution no change can be made in the tariff except Congress takes the initiative. We must pass legislation to enable the Executive to offer favorable trade agreements. It is with us here to originate it.

Furthermore, the time had come to hunt for more revenue in a tariff bill, and these two considerations hastened the consideration by the House and the country of a new tariff act. Hence it came about that the Republican platform in the last election pledged the party to the revision of the tariff. Already, before that, your Committee on Ways and Means had begun its work, anticipating the verdict of the country, even before the Chicago convention met, and that committee had set its clerks to work looking up information that would aid the committee in the passage of this bill.

Now, the question of revenues under this bill is a serious question, and yet is not so serious as it would appear at first blush. It is true we had a big deficit on the 1st day of July last for the previous year, but we had had a big depression in busi

Importations had halted, revenues had been cut down, and when that continued during the fiscal year 1909 down to the present time, showing a deficiency of $87,000,000, it looked like a difficult task to provide sufficient revenue for the expenditures of the Government.

But this was only a surface view of the case because, with reviving industry, with prosperity, with putting money in the purses of the people that their demands may be supplied, revenues will increase from all the sources from which the Government derives revenue.

Mr. Chairman, I will take up some of the schedules in the bill. In the first place we have provided a minimum and maximum tariff. Our minimum tariff is a protective tariff, built on the lines of our party platform and sometimes a little more than the party platform, because it is impossible to hold the scales evenly, even with all the information available to your committee on all these schedules.

We provide that any country which gives us as fair trade relations as they give to any other country, which makes no discrimination against us which they do not make against the most favored nation under their conventions or tariffs, shall receive this minimum tariff provided for in sections 1 and 2. But if they do not, if they do not give us an equal chance in their markets with any other nation, we do not propose to allow them to come into our market at this minimum rate. Our

market is the market of the world, for we are the greatest consumers, the greatest buyers of any nation on earth, consuming from one-third to one-half of the productions of the world over.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak of some of the changes made in this bill. The committee have transferred some items from the free list to the dutiable list. The increases are few in number. They are not very serious, but every one of them was made for a reason, after examining the evidence that was before the committee.

Here Mr. Payne went into detailed discussion of the various changes. When he reached the question of women's gloves, upon which article he said the committee had recommended an advanced duty of $1.50, James B. Perkins [N. Y.] questioned him as follows:

The gentleman believes that this dollar and a half a dozen pairs will materially increase the price of women's gloves?

MR. PAYNE.—Yes; in the first operation it would—that is, while we were having protection, increasing the price first as a benefit to the manufacturers, and then when competition comes in you get back to the old rates, just as we have on men's gloves, or below.

MR. PERKINS.-Then, as I understand, this duty is not intended as a means of increasing the revenue?

MR. PAYNE.-Fortunately, both meet in this schedule. It is beautiful for revenue and magnificent for business.

MR. PERKINS.-Then I understand that, if we manufacture 90 per cent. of the women's gloves that are used, instead of what we are doing now, there will be no importation, and the revenue on gloves will certainly be less. You cannot both get the revenue and make the gloves without making the revenue less.

MR. PAYNE.-Well, we need the revenue now, right off, next year. The year after that we will not need so much of it, and before this bill is repealed I hope we will not need any from this source.

RICHARD YOUNG [N. Y.].-While the manufacture of gloves will be greater the importation of leather will be increased very much, and the revenue will not be so greatly changed as it would seem on the first statement of the case.

MR. PAYNE.-That is true. I am glad that my colleague made that statement.

CHOICE B. RANDELL [Tex.].-I will ask the gentleman from

New York what the purpose of the majority of the committee was, in drafting this bill, in reducing the tariff on barley to 15 cents a bushel and on barley malt to 20 cents a hundred? Was not that in favor of the brewers, or was it intended for some other purpose?

MR. PAYNE.-Fifteen cents is perfectly high protection on barley. It is in proportion to the duty on wheat and oats.

WILLIAM W. RUCKER [Mo.].-Is this a reduction to protect the American farmer or the beer manufacturer?

MR. PAYNE.-You gentlemen, every man of you, has gone on the stump and said these duties were prohibitive; that they did not need any such duties, and they were put in and held out as a sop to the American farmer. Have you not done so?

MR. RUCKER.-I have so charged and I believe it nowMR. PAYNE.-Why are you whining about it now? MR. RUCKER.-I believe this talk of protection to the products of the American farmer is a fraud, a sham, and a pretence. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

MR. PAYNE.-I never saw the like of the agility with which you gentlemen can get on both sides of the rail at the same time.

MR. RUCKER.-Not on both sides, but we want to get you on the other side a little bit. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

MR. PAYNE.-Now, Mr. Chairman, they say there is a joker as to coffee. Coffee is placed on the free list; but there is a proviso as to coffee, and what is it? That whenever any country levies an export tax on coffee we will levy an import tax equal to the amount on the coffee exported.

Brazil is now levying an export duty of forty-seven onehundredths of a cent upon every pound of coffee exported to the United States. We are paying that, and it is added to the price of the coffee, and we are paying that toward the support of the Brazilian Government. Some South American republics are putting on a larger export tax even than that. We propose to meet them on that ground and say to them that whatever the amount of their export tax we will put the same amount as an import tax. We will double it, and we will get

half of it and they will get the other half.

CHAMP CLARK [Mo.].-Does not that mean in plain, everyday English that the American consumer of coffee will be paying both taxes?

MR. PAYNE.-Well, now, I will come to that before I get through.

Now, there are some countries that do not levy an export tax. They are rivals of Brazil. If they can get in here fortyseven one-hundredths of a cent a pound cheaper than Brazil can, then, unless Brazil cuts off her export tax, the exporters of coffee in Brazil will be paying on their coffee to get into this market forty-seven one-hundredths of a cent to the Government of Brazil and forty-seven one-hundredths of a cent to the Government of the United States, or ninety-four one-hundredths of a cent, while the other countries will have no export tax and will not have to pay any duty to the United States. That is all the joker there is in this paragraph-a plain business proposition. We propose, if we let coffee free into the United States, by proper legislation, to compel those countries to export it free into the United States. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. Chairman, we have put iron ore on the free list after full consideration by the committee. I do not think I will go into that in detail, but I want to say that the evidence of Judge Gary, president of the United States Steel Company, was that in the production of pig iron 2 tons of our iron would go as far as 3 tons of the iron imported from across the sea; and that is true also of the Nova Scotia iron, they yielding about 40 per cent. and ours about 60 per cent. Of course while that is true, it follows that there would be no occasion or necessity of a duty of 40 cents a ton on iron ore.

MR. RANDELL.-Is it not a fact, as shown by the evidence before the committee, that the imported iron ore is used simply on the Atlantic coast, and that to take off the tariff will not decrease the price of iron products to the consumer, but will be giving the revenue to certain furnaces in New England on the Atlantic coast? Is it not a fact that that amounts to about half a million dollars a year?

MR. PAYNE.-If we collect $200,000 on iron ore some one must pay it. The gentleman's theory has ever been that it was the ultimate consumer that paid that duty.

MR. RANDELL.-Is not this a special case, and do not the facts show that this action could not reduce the price of iron because it affects only certain furnaces at certain points, and that in this particular case it is a gift of that much revenue to these furnaces, and taking that much from the treasury?

MR. PAYNE.-The gentleman was solicitous about the steel trust for some reason or other in the hearings, and there has been some fear in some quarters that the steel trust might ultimately drive the smaller concerns out of business. Some of