MIR. BAYwooD,s AbDREss
{"newspaper_name": "The North-Carolina standard.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6801, "word_count": 1203, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9697999954223633], "ccnet_perplexity": [1162.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Senator Haywood's Address is from the Charles
ton Mercury:


"iSenator Hay,Oood's ADDRESS. The Washing
ton papers of Wednesday contain Mr.. HAYwooD's
Address to the people Of North Carolina, in jusli
hcation Of his course on the Tariff bill. 1t covers
seven and half columns of the Union. We are
not among those who have looked for this exposi-
ton with any great cu:iosity-the Senator's posi-
ton was merely political curiosity-it had been
made certain that he could never be of any use to
either Wings or Democrats agan-and therefore it
mattered little, except his personal friends that
he should be able to clear himself Of sin, by con-
victing himself Of folly and weakness. Indeed as
a politician merely, he had better have brazened
it out and dr6ed the moral sense of the world.


"We have never believed Mr.. HAYWOOD guilty
Of deliberate treachery-and finding absolutely no
were at the time of his resignation, completely at
fault for the explanation. This Address does af-
ford the clue of his conduct and far relieves
1t shows that Mr.. HAYWOOD is exceedingly ignorant
on the Tariff question, Che confesses tina! he was
when he first went to the Senate, but claims to,
have improved since, in which differ from him.
and that he has much Of that perversiry which be-
longs to a combination of ignorance, prejudice,
vanity and weakness. There is not single point
in his discussion of the Tariff that is fairly stated
and in not a single instance does he submit his
statements to the test Of specification. Now let
us see what he aims at.


to lay down "McKAY's Tariff Bill - of 1914 as his
standard of proper tariff, and he fully and une-
quivocally aVows his past and present approval OF
that bill. And he justi6es himself for deuouncng
the Tariff o: 1916 as runous TO the country, on the
ground of its difference from that bill J! II will be


impossible for any we'll Informed person to suppress
his wonder at the enormous folly of such decara-
tions The two bills 10 all their general features
are the same, and in nearly every instance where
they differ the original " McKAY's Bill" which
Mr.. HAYwooD warmly approves, was a lower tariff,
than that of 1916 which he denounces for its ex-
cessive reductions and its ruinous effect ON manu-
ia hIFHU uToc he vIhnRN Po 10
under McKAY's bill, and it provided further that
the 80 per cent duties should be reduced 10 25 at
The end of two years. The present law with the
same articles the same rate, cootemplates
such reduction. Again McKAY's bill levied the
duties on The foreign cost ony,-ihe present law
on the cost and charges. Mr.. HAYWOOD is very
careful no, to give any specifications, in justification
OF his absurd distinction between the TWO tariffs.


He next proceeds TO talk in favor Of protection
and TO quote authorities for it. Here he assumes,
directly in the face of the obvious fact, that the
Tariff of 1876 is pure free-trade scheme. The
truth is, that i; is from beginning end character1
ed bY discrimination for the advantage of the hith
erto protected classes. The discrimination is mode
rate compared with the Wing Tariff but il is there.
The duty on imported wool, which has been quoted
by the press instance of discrimination
against protection, was fact only an instance Of
conflict between two classes in which for won
der, the farmer triumphed over the manufacturer.
The duty was avowedy made high for the sake of
the wool-growers. But under this head as under
the other. Mr.. HAYWOOD does not make a solitary
specification.


"But Mr.. HAYWOOD was further opposed to the
present reduction Of dutes account of the Mex
lean war. He leaves his readers 10 infer that the
Tariff Of 1912 was sufficient for the exigency-
that it would pay all the expenses Of the war! He
infers himself, but gives neither fact nor reason
10 sustain the assertion, that the new tariff will be
much less productive. He coollY takes for granted
thar il will produce less than twenty millIons-not
feeling bound 10 assign any reason for so widely
differing from the estimates of the Treasury De-
partment and Of all the Democratic Senators. We
have not doubt but that the new tariff will short
ly be productive than the old one, and its ten
dency will be to increase, not to destroy commerce
Mr.. HAYwooD's last bjection TO the Tariff bill
itself, is its adoption of the dd UdLOrenr principle
On this ground, he calls it an experiment, and
would lead his readers to suppose that such thing
was never heard of before. Had he forgotten the
Compromise Act which provided that all duties
should be levied Gd p1LorenI and none higher than
90 perceR12 But McKAY's Bill " itself, which
he approved and assisted in making, with the ex-
ception of very few articles, laid the duties 0d
UdLOrem-and even under the Tariff of 1912, the
greater part Of the revenue Is derived from Gd VG-
loren1 duties. What an insult to the common
sense of the country, then, is this calling al pGlo-
rem duties an Cntried experiment! Whenever
nothing but revenue is looked 10 in laying duties,
they would always be dd ralorent, because such
are the most productive. They allow all qualities
on proportionate tax. A duty on the quantity
(speci6c) will be light tax on the costly quality
and an oppressive one on the cheap. Under the
tariff of 1912, the cheap French Wines almost
ceased to be imported-whie the rich mans drink
fundamentally felt the tax. The few specific
duties of "McKAY's bill !" were in every instance


laid TO propitiate the protective classes. But it is
needless TO discuss this topic.


"Upon all these objections to the new tariff Mr..
HAYWOOD strenrously insists, and in all cases he
interposes his conscience, his patriotism, his sense
of duty, his protection. Will be believed, that
this ranscendental patriot, in spite Of all these
weghy objections, actually agreed to vote for the
new tariff, provided its operation could be postpon-
ed from the 1st of December TO the 1st Of March
] Yet he so assures US in his Address. From the
beginning to the end Of his long vindication, we
fad his conscience and his sense of duty hanging
like a nightmare over him, and disordering bis
mind so far as to blind him the fact that the bill
under consideration was almost identcally the
same as the one he had approved and cherished as
a model Of tariff, and yet conscience and all that


did at last dwindle down, into a petty objection
to the day for the tariff 10 go into operation


Conscience cried out for March and the bill said


December! Conscience had conceded much
| the rate Of laxatIon-the principle of taxation


but when it came 10 the day of the month, con


science .ook the studs and would not bulge inch
further. Poor Mr.. HAYWOOD! ]" .. ... -.
/ We are so crowded this week that we are com
nelled TO omit list of the Members elect to The