ll authority had been given to the
Secretary of the Treasury to apply surplus revenue to the purchase
of United States bonds. But the President, set in his opinion,
was not satisfied with such measures, but demanded the reduction
of duties which protected American industries.

The greater part of my speech in reply to the President's message
was a discussion of the different forms of taxation imposed by the
United States and especially the duties imposed on imported goods.
I never was an extreme protectionist. I believed in the imposition
of such a duty on foreign goods which could be produced in the
United States as would fairly measure the difference in the cost
of labor and manufacture in this and foreign countries. This was
a question not to be decided by interested capitalists, but by the
careful estimate of business men. The intense selfishness exhibited
by many of those who demanded protection, and the error of those
who opposed all protection, were alike to be disregarded.

I believe that no judicious tariff can be framed by Congress alone,
without the help of a commission of business men not personally
interested in the subject-matter, and they should be aided by
experienced officers in the revenue service. I have participated
in a greater or less degree in the framing of every tariff law for
forty years. I have spoken many times on the subject in the Senate
and on the rostrum. My reply to the President's message is the
best exposition I have made as to the principles and details of a
protective tariff. If I had my way I would convene such a tariff
commission as I have discussed, give it ample time to hear and gain
all information that could aid it, and require it to report the
rates of duty proposed in separate schedules so that the rate of
each schedule or paragraph might be raised or lowered from time to
time to meet the wants of the treasury. If Congress would allow
such a bill to become a law we could dismiss the tariff free from
party politics and lay the foundation for a durable system of
national taxation, upon which domestic industries may be founded
without the hazard which they now encounter every year or two by
"tinkering with the tariff."

The real controversy raised by the President's message was not
whether taxes should be reduced, but what taxes should be reduced
or abolished. I stated the position of the two parties in a debate
with Mr. McKenna, as follows;

"There is a broad li