AddresG of
President Willlaja PI.Taft-
Ofincord,N,H.1912»

"I give the/e Booh
for the fonndiag if a College in this ColoAy"

1913

¦*i^!'MWAM*WW".'S,^'g

62dConghess\ oTrwATS- (Document
Zd Ses^or, I • SENATE j ^^_ 5^2

ADDRESS

OF

PRESIDENT WILLIAM H. TAFT
IN FRONT OF THE STATE
HOUSE AT CONCORD, N. H.
MARCH 19, 1912

PRESENTED BY MR. GALLINGER
APRIL 11, 1912. — Ordered to be printed

WASHINGTON 1912

Cd 1^.-1^:^

ADDRESS OF PRESIDEI^T TAFT IN FRONT OF THE STATE
HOUSE, CONCORD, N. H., MARCH 19, 1912.

Mr. President, ladies aTid gentlemen of New Hampshire, my fellow
citizens:
I am greatly indebted to Gov. Bachelder for his kindly introduc
tion. I know there is one thing in my administration that he did
not approve and has not approved, and I count a man broad and
liberal who is able to have a sense of proportion, and though he may
not approve the thing nearest his heart is yet able to be generous and
judicial and look at the other side of the picture.
I am here to state, on behalf of the administration, of which I am
a humble part, and in which I don't have sometimes as much influ
ence as I think I ought to have, some of the things that we have ac
complished that makes me feel that we have the right to be consid
ered progressive.
Now we Eepublicans agreed in 1908 to revise the tariff, and I con
strued that to mean, according to the ordinary course of revision, an
agreement to revise it downward. I called an extra session in accord
ance with the promise, and the tariff was revised, and was revised
downward; but it was not revised as much downward in certain
schedules as I thought it ought to have been and I still think it ought
to have been. But the effect of the Payne bill was very much mis
represented. The record of customs at the Treasury Department
wQl show, as compared with the record of the Dingley bill, that there
was a substantial reduction in many of the schedules except in cham
pagnes a,nd other luxuries in which you would not ask and no one
would ask to have a reduction. But there were other things that
the Payne bill did. First it did justice to the Philippines, and it
gave them free trade, and the trade between this country and the
Phihppines, without injuring any industry in this country, has more
than doubled, and I venture to predict that within 10 years it will
quadruple. Then there was the maximum and minimum clause in that tariff
that has enabled me to go to many of the countries of the world and
say, "Here, you are discriminating against us in this and unless you
avoid that discrimination and abolish it, we will make our tariff
against you 25 per cent higher." That has enabled us to remove
discriminations and to extend our foreign trade and to increase it.
Again, it authorized the Executive to appoint a committee to aid
him in the administration of the customs laws, and out of that I
appointed a Tariff Board, because I believe, with the business men of
this country, that before we change the tariff, and our experience in
the Payne bill convinced me of it, we ought to know what we are
doing. We have a country that is dependent upon a protective
tariff system. Now, we want to keep that tariff down low enough so
(3)

as not to bring about exorbitant prices on the one side, but high
enough so as not to destroy the great industries that are dependent
upon it, because if those industries are destroyed then the whole
business of the country will be affected and every wage earner and
investor and capitalist will all be injured. So I appointed a Tariff
Board. They are an impartial tribunal. I made that board three
Republicans, so called — I don't think they are Republicans enough
to hurt — and two Democrats — and I don't think they are so badly
Democratic as to be too Democratic. They have gone to work as
scientific investigators and they have made a great report on the wool
schedule, and that report shows that the wool schedule can be properly
revised. Well, I don't like to be invidious, but I would like to call
your attention to the fact that last summer in the extra session,
•although we were going to hear from the Tariff Board about this wool
business on the 1st of December, our Democratic friends who control
the House said that the people could not wait ; that they were cold ; that
they needed wool, and therefore they could not wait, and they had at
once to reduce the wool tariff. So they passed a wool bill and sent it
ito me. I vetoed it, because I did not know whether it would drive
our business out or not. Now, we have a full report, we know exactly
what the condition is and what kind of a bill will hurt and what kind
of a bill will not, and not yet has there been a wool bill even intro
duced, and it has been very cold this winter. They said they were
passing these things to aid the people and to reduce the tariff. Well,
let me tell a story and then I will leave it to you to say whether they
did pass it for that reason. I do not believe in recrimination and in
calling people names, but I do believe when you have a joke on a
man you have a right to tell it.
They passed a cotton bill in the House and it went to the Senate.
When it went to the Senate it was a bill that cut rates very low.
There were some gentlemen from the South who came from States
that make cotton cloth. These gentlemen said, "Look here, we can
not go back to our constituents and vote for this reduction." Their
colleagues said, "That is all right; we will give you an opportunity to
explain it. We will put cotton machinery at 25 per cent ad valorem
instead, of 45 per cent, and we will change the whole chemical sched
ule. In making cotton you use bleaching powder and coloring mat
ter, and all that sort of thing, so we will give you an opportunity to
reduce that chemical schedule 25 per cent, and in that way you can
go back to your friends and say, 'Here, your materials don't cost you
ISO much, so you can stand the cut.'" Well, the Senator to whom
this was said went down to the Treasury Department and got hold of
¦an elderly gentleman who called himself a statistician. He said to
him, "You cut this chemical schedule, which is Schedule A with 88
different items, down 25 per cent." But there were 66 out of those
88 items that imposed what we call specific duty — not ad valorem
It is easy enough to cut down ad valorem 25 per cent, but when it comes
to cutting specific duty down 25 per cent you have to know a o-ood deal
about it. Nevertheless, the statistician went at it, and he made a
(return to our friend the Senator. The Senator went into the Senate
¦ and offered the bill as an amendment to the cotton schedule  a reduc-
,tion of 25 per cent, he said, on the cotton schedule. They asked him
isome questions. He said, "I don't know anything about it, excent
what they told me, that it is a reduction of 25 per cent on the cotton

schedule." So they voted it right onto the cotton bill. It never
went to a committee and never had any examination. Then it went
back to the House, including a similar measure with reference to steel —
but I am referring now to the chemical schedule — it went back to
the House, and it went through there in two days, when they brought
it to me. When it got to me I was as ignorant as anyone. I con
cluded I would go to the man who did know, so I sent for the expert
of the Tariff Board, and he went over this chemical schedule, and this
IS what he found: He found that there were about 20 items that
were reduced— not 25 per cent, but 100 per cent— and that there
were 20 more items that were not reduced at all, but were increased
100 per cent; and among those items was the bleaching powder and
the coloring matter, the reduction of duty on which our friend the
Senator was going to use as a reason for explaining how it was that
they could make cotton down there with cheaper materials. In this
chemical schedule of 88 items there were quite a number of com
pounds of alcohol. Now, alcohol, you know, pays a domestic duty
of SI. 10 a gallon. They eliminated specific duties which are imposed
in the present chemical schedule, amounting to. about $.3 a gallon,
and put in 60 per cent ad valorem. Well, alcohol costs about 25
cents a gallon to make, and 60 per cent of that is about 15 cents a
gallon. If I had signed that bill, every country in Europe could have
sent in here and sold to the people at large alcohol and whisky with a
tax of 15 cents a gallon, while our manufacturers here were paying
$1.10 a gallon. It would have made such a hole in our internal reve
nue that we would have had to issue bonds to fill it up. I don't charge
our Democratic friends with any intention to ruin the country in that
way, but I invite your attention to the fact that before putting the
bill up to me they should have looked more closely into the character
of the legislation they were sending. I cite you that instance to
show that we ought to have somebody who knows something about
the tariff to tell us about it before we get to meddhng with it and
trying to change it.
Well, by the Payne tariff bill we imposed an income tax on the
earnings of corporations, and we received therefrom $.30,000,000. By
the Payne bill, with that increase, we changed a deficit of $50,000,000,
which was the deficit on the 1st of July after I came into office, to a
surplus of from $35,000,000 to $40,000,000. Now, my friends, I call
that progressive. It is an old humdrum method of being progressive,
but I call it progressive.
Then the railroads had violated the rule, which ought to have ob
tained from the beginning, of giving equal rates to everybody and
not discriminating by giving rebates to the larger shippers and deal
ers. In 1887 they passed the law, but it was not effective, and they
tinkered with it a decade or more. Then in Mr. Roosevelt's adminis
tration they passed the act of 1906 called the rate bill, by which the
Interstate Commerce Commission were authorized to fix rates. But
that did not bring the railroads closely under the supervision of the
Interstate Commerce Commission, and in 1910 they passed a law that
was very drastic, and has brought them completely within the control
of that commission, so that now if there is any defect it can be reme
died by the machinery that is offered to the people who may wish to
complain. But some of my progressive friends say, ' ' You did not
have anything to do with that; that was only a few progressives that

did it." Well, there were 13 progressives, and there were some 35
other who were called regulars, and I don't know how you could get
that bill through on 13 votes out of 90 unless you got the other .35
regulars, and then I don't know how you are going to get the bill
through under the Constitution of the United States unless you get
my signature. Now, they say that the bill I recommended was a bill
for the railroads, but the bill that came out of there was a bill against
railroads. I can not go into that discussion. I would hke to refer
you to the speech I made in Des Moines, and to the recommendation of
my message, and if you find any great difference between the bill as I
recommended it and the bill as I signed it, I would be willing to sur
render. There were details that were different, but on the whole the
drastic character of the statute was carried out, and the giving of the
power to the commission to control matters was in both the pro
posal and in the realization. I call that progressive.
Then we hear much about the conservation of natural resources.
Well, there were a great many millions of acres of coal land, a great
many millions of acres of phosphate land, and a great many millions
of acres with water-power sites, and I secured the passage of a law
which enabled me to withdraw all of these things from settlement.
There had been withdrawals before, but the power to make it was
very doubtful. Therefore for the purpose of stopping litigation they
passed a law which gave me the power, and then I withdrew over
100,000,000 of acres. Now we have to dispose of that. We can not
hold it as useless. We have got to arrange in some way in which
we shall retain sufficient governmental control to prevent monopoly
and improper use, but on the other hand shall be able successfully to
invite capital to the development necessary. Those steps are stiU
to be taken, but the first step and the conservative step has been
taken, and I claim that is progressive.
Then we put in postal savings banks. I suppose you have one here.
The great advantage of that is not that it is a competitor with the
private savings banks or the State savings banks, because it charges
too low interest, but it is that through the security the Government
gives you are able to induce thrift on the part of the people, on the
part of those people who will not trust our bankmg system, and
therefore want some Government security of the deposit. This
deposit is increasing I don't know how many milHons a year, and wiU
promote thrift and not only will not interfere with State savings banks
but I doubt not will increase their deposits. I claim that that is
progressive. Then we are trying to get through parcel post. I have recom
mended that for two Congresses, and I hope we will get it through.
We have to begin slowly and we will have to begin perhaps with the
rural routes and with the city delivery, but after a while we will carry
It on. That is said to be paternahsm. Well, it is in a sense but I
think the right line between what the Government ought to do and
what ought to be left to private enterprise is the fine which separates
that which the Government may do more efficiently and at less cost
than private enterprise. In this case let the Government do it but
where private enterprise can do it as well and at the same cost let
private enterprise do it.
Then, my friends, there were some other things that I like to call
progressive that we attempted to do, mentioned by my friend Gov.

Bachelder. When I entered office our treaty with Japan was
about to terminate. The horizon was clouded, and the question was
whether we could readjust matters with that country. Through the
finesse, through the diplomacy, and through the ability of Secretarj^
Knox, that treaty went through, although we anticipated great
trouble on account of the objection of the Pacific coast. It did not
materiahze, and we are to go on now with Japan for another 12 or 15
years' of peaceful association. I think that, my friends, is progressive.
Then we tried to do something progressive that did not progress as
far as I would like to have had it go. We made two peace treaties.
I understand you have a peace society here in Concord, and I am
talking to them now, because I know they will sympathize with me.
I said once in a speech at a banquet — I once in a while attend a
banquet — that I did not see why we could not submit to arbitration
every question that arose between this country and any other,
whether it involved national honor or vital interest or not. Our
present treaties of arbitration exclude both vital interest and national
honor, and they ought to be written in this wise: ''Treaties of arbi
tration for the purpose of arbitrating every question that is not
likely to lead to war." They leave out of arbitration every question
that is likely to lead to war, and therefore they are utterly inefficient,
so far as forming a hope that war will be obviated by their use. Now,
I am in favor, as I said, of arbitrating questions of honor and questions
of vital interest. That is said to be contrary to the spirit of a red-
blooded man. Well, I have got as much red blood as most men, I
think, and I would a great deal rather arbitrate a question of honor
than submit it to the arbitrament of force. I would rather leave it to
10 good, honest, fair-minded men, with sufficient intelligence to com
prehend an issue, than to submit it to the question of whether I am
a stronger or a better marksman, or my country has better foi'ces
than some other country with whom the issue is on. Why, my dear
friends, we laughed out of existence the code duello. That was a code
by which if I was a gentleman, or claimed to be, and somebody else
was a gentleman, or claimed to be, and insulted me, I had to write
that man a note and tell him I would meet him the next morning on
the field of honor and let him shoot at me, because he had insulted
me. Well, of course, I had an opportunity to shoot at him. But sup
pose he was a good marksman, and I was as good a mark as I am, was
it not ridiculous ? Suppose I went at him on a field of honor and he
put a lead bullet in my body. Would it not take a great deal longer
than a possible convalescence in bed to satisfy me that that was a
reasonable method of vindicating my honor ?
Three centuries ago in England — this is historical — if a man made
a promissory note, or signed a bond, and then when it came to pay
had those feelings that so many of us have when we have to pay our
debts, and so little money with which to pay them, he went into court
and he said, "Well, I will demand wager of battle." The court would
then say, "We will honor that claim of wager of battle. Here are
two long swords." The defendant and plaintiff went out into a 24-
foot ring and went at each other. If the defendant cut off the head
or arm, or in any way knocked out the plaintiff, according to English
law, that settled it that the defendant either had never made the
bond or if he had that he had paid it. That was three centuries ago.
They have abolished it now. Don't you think we had better abolish

8
the same method of settling difficulties between nations >. Is there
any great reason why we civilized people when we have differences
with another nation should not submit these differences to a court ''<
We as citizens when we have our difficulties are bound to go into
court or else, if we take the law into our own hands, we are put in
jail and wait and abide a lawful judgment. But the Senate in its
wisdom has thought it too much to risk. Let me refer to the treaties,
if I may.
The first section agreed on behalf of both countries that we would
submit every justiciable question to the decision of arbitration.
What does justiciable mean? It is defined in the treaty to mean
every question which can be settled by the application of the rules of
law or equity. The second clause creates a joint high commission
that is to take over ah questions and see if they can not suggest a
settlement, and they may delay a year if they choose. That is in
order to have the nations cool off. The Senate committee said that
that was a breeder of war rather than of peace. I don't agree ^^'ith
them. I know the effect of time upon curing any feeling of the mind,
especially curing anger. I don't suppose you people in New Hamp
shire have the weakness we have out in Ohio, and I don't suppose any
one of you ever get real mad at the store or at the office and went
home and was greeted by your good wife, and you were in such an
ugly mood that you answered her shortly and did not want to con
tinue the conversation. And then you sat in a rocking-chair and
rocked forward and backward, trying to wear out the carpet with the
hope that in some way or other you could get rid of that feeling; and
then you heard your good wife whisper to the children, "Papa is not
feeling very weU to-day. 1 would not disturb him." And then you
went on rocking, and you took 15 or 20 minutes. If you have a
looking-glass it always helps under these conditions. Within an
hour — for an hour wiU cure the anger — you begin to realize what an
inetrable ass you are making of yourself, getting mad at somebody
who could not help it. Give a nation a year to think it over and this
is almost certain to dispose of war and prevent it, because the people
of both nations will begin to realize the awful losses that war will
subject them to. It is the plain people that have to suffer in war.
Oh, I agree that the wealthier are just as brave as the poor, but there
are not so many of them as there are of the poor, and the reason why the
poor suffer more than the rich is for the same reason that red cows give
more milk— because there are more of them. So war falls more heavily
on the poor and humble, and in its trail follow corruption and cruelty
and everything else that is destructive of good government You
know how it was after the Civil War. It took us five vcars to c^et
around to real good government. Everything was flushed and every
body looked upon everything that was irregular as if it was to be
forgiven, and it was not until 10 years after the war that we got back
to honest government and honest plain dealing with the public
mterest^ by it is after every war, and that is one of the great dis
asters that foll,nv It ^ow, the Senate has put in many exceptions
into that treaty and has elmimated the third clause, which enabled
this jomt ngh commission to decide the question whether in case of
dispute^ whether a question was arifitrable or not, so that the treaty
does not look very good to me now. Whether we shah close it up oV
whetlier we shall hold it .nit an.l try agam, is a question that has not

been settled, and will not be until Secretary Knox returns. But what
I want to say to this people and to all the people is that I am con
vinced the people are with me on the subject of these treaties. I have
been in about 40 States, and I have sounded them, and I know how
they feel; and I don't propose, whether a private citizen or otherwise,
to let up on that question as long as I have a voice that will make itself
heard. Now, gentlemen, there are other things I could mention to you that
¦I regard as progressive, but I have talked to you longer than I have
a right to keep any audience, especially when you can not sit down.
So I am going to ask you, with reference to this administration, to
give us — that is all I ask — a square deal; look into the question
whether what has been done in the last three years is not of sufficient
importance, and when I say what has been done I mean what has
been put into the statute book and enforced.
I left out a reference to the trusts and the antitrust law. I found
that on the statute book. I understood that that was a law which
all progressives desired enforced, and I went ahead and enforced it,
and now I find that there is a little difference of opinion. But I
stiU claim that the enforcement of the law was progressive, and
whether it was progressive or not, it was in accordance with the oath
of office I took in Washington, and so I enforced it, and I propose to
enforce it hereafter until it is repealed. I want to add to it by putting
on a national incorporation act that shall give us closer supervision
of business and give greater security to those who comply with the
law in carrying on business.
Finally, I deem it the first duty of the administration, after enforc
ing the law, to do everything to help along business. It is pros
perity that is progressive, if it is sound prosperity and prosperity
according to law. The wealthy people can get on in hard times.
They are just as comfortable, they have just as many eggs or beef
steaks or what not for breakfast, whether hard times or not. It is
the wage-earners and their children and their families who feel the
effect of hard times, and therefore it is the business of the adminis
tration, in so far as it may, to remove all obstacles to business and to
prevent that lack of confidence, so far as it can, which destroys pros
perity. Anything that stirs up hate between the classes, anything
that threatens the foundations of the Government so that those who
have capital begin to fear whether they have security or not, is quite
likely to interfere with business.
There is one other thing. It is said that we ought to change our
judges or our judicial system because judges are not progressive. It
is said that they have not recognized certain progressive principles.
WeU, I agree that there are some decisions which I am progressive
enough to think were wrongly decided in holding that certain laws
that were passed for the benefit of a class were unconstitutional. How
are you going to remedy that ? Are you going to remedy it by break
ing down the whole judicial system ? Our body of judges are a highly
honorable skilled body of men. There may be some black sheep
among them. If there are, create a tribunal for their removal, but
don't remove them by a popular vote and by the vote of those people
against whom presumably the judge has had the courage to decide a
case. What is this Republic ? Is it a government of the people, for
the people, and by all the people? No; by a controlling majority of
S. Doc. 552, 62^2  2

10
the electorate, and that is about one-fourth of all the people. You
don't have woman's suffrage here yet. That one-fourth constituting
the electorate is a representative part I agree, but we could not permit
them to have absolute power. They are limited by the provisions of
the Constitution. They have limitations upon how they can act
and how far they may go. The Constitution contains the Bill of
Rights that secures your hberty and name, that secures your property
and mine, that secures to aU of us the right to pursue happiness under
the Constitution. Now do you desire it arranged so that the control
ling majority of that electorate may vote away one of those rights of
yours? Of course you don't. That is a limitation in the interest of
the individual, or the minority, or the nonvoting majority against the
usurpation by the controlling majority of the electorate. Of course
a majority of them ultimately may change the Constitution, but there
are checks and balances that require time and dehberation to change
or amend the Constitution, and that is for the purpose of preventing
momentary, impulsive action all of a sudden by a one vote of the
majority, and that majority must be held within constitutional limi
tations. But if you are going to have it arranged so that when a judge
has courage to say to the controlling majority of the electorate, "You
have Adolated the Constitution, and you can not take away from this
man the rights that the Constitution gives him," and then they have a
vote as to whether that controlhng majority shall say whether the
judge shall come off the bench or not, how do you think it is going to
result? Well, you know people; I know people. It is said that I
distrust the people because I said that under impulsive action they
may do wrong. I do. I think so. Don't you ? Are you afraid to
say so ? If you dare say so, you are telling the truth, and you are tell
ing it to American audiences that have courage to stand the truth.
Now, I >^eld to no one in mj^ admiration and belief in popular govern
ment. I beheve in it down to the ground. I believe it is the great
est government that was ever invented, and I believe it is the most
enduring, but I should fly in the face of Providence, I should consider
that I made myself ridiculous if I said that every single vote of the
controllmg majority of the people was necessarfly right. Of course
people act impulsively and they get mad without a knowledge of the
facts, but the greatness of the American people is shown by the cir
cumstances that when they make a Constitution and when they con
struct a government, they act on the theory that there will come a
tune m their history when they will act hastily and they impose re
strictions upon themselves. '
And then there is the recaU of decisions— that is, if you do not like a
decision, then, refer that decision, which is an interpretation of the
Constitution^ to a vote at the next election. It is said that the people
adopt the Constitution, why should they not interpret it That
sounds well. The Consritution is a declaration of general principles
It IS usually framed by a constitutional convention, and you adopt it
that way, but when it comes to apply a comphcated law to the Consti-
t,Viio^' or the Constitution to that law, the question is one of most
difficult mterpretation. It is complex. It requires an expert, and
that IS why you put on the bench your jurists to work out the prob
lem. If you are going to build a bridge or a road, all the people do not
turn out to build the bridge or road. You select the men wno are
capable of builcbng the bridge or road. If you are gomg to have a

11
ball, you don't have all the public play the viohn. You employ the
men who can play the violin. And so it is with respect to any matter
that calls for expert knowledge and skill, and that is what the inter
pretation of the Constitution caUs for. And therefore it is not true to
say that because the people can adopt the Constitution they are capable
of interpreting it, where the question of interpretation is a complex
one. More than that, if you turn over to the people every tune the
question whether such a constitutional interpretation is right or not,
you will have one decision by one majority and another decision by
another majority. You will have laws inconsistent, and you will have
a government of special instances. Now, what is a government of
special instances. It is the greatest tyranny in the world. It is doing
one thing to one man and another thing to another man. The
basis of all just laws is uniformity of action and uniformity of applica
tion, and to put into force the system I have described is simply to
destroy the possibiUty of uniformity. Therefore, I say this threat
ened attack upon the judiciary is laying the ax at the root of the tree.
It is destroying the Constitution, the enforcement of which depends
upon the independence and our holding high and away from undue
influence and improper influence that branch of the Government that
says, "So far shaft thou go and no farther."
And now, my friends, I have talked myself out. I can not tell you
how thankful I am to you for your patience in listening. Good-by,
and God bless you. o

3 9002 08305 0055

Irr ^ ¦ ~

' ' "J', ti.'C'.B i"*/.'-, *-.
, 'ko''-i'S*sSHy''i ';L'' -r''-*-r.- >"'

.«f

In
.^r:-;
' ''^ ¦I
«=rtv