rch, 1909, being called together in extraordinary session
by President Taft, every one recognized the necessity for entering
upon this work. There had been no specific declaration in the
platform as to the character of the revision. Some, commonly called
"stand-patters," contended for a readjustment without any general
lowering of rates, while others held out stiffly for a reduction
all along the line. The result of the work of Congress was the
enactment of what is known as the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Law of 1909,
the measure taking its name on account of the joint efforts in its
behalf of the Honorable Sereno Payne, of New York, Chairman of the
Committee of Ways and Means of the House, and Honorable Nelson W.
Aldrich, of Rhode Island, Chairman of the Committee on Finance of
the Senate. The Payne-Aldrich law is a Protective measure, as it
was intended to be. The Progressives, in both the Senate and House,
sought at every step to reduce the schedules, but generally without
success. In this effort, they were supported by Democratic Senators
and Representatives, but the "Old Guard" controlled such a pronounced
majority in both Houses as to render the opposing efforts futile,
fierce though they were. So general was this conflict that in many
matters the Progressives soon established a faction of their own.
There were many skirmishes all along the line. Their divergence
from the views of Regular Republicanism was indicated not on the
tariff alone, but on many other questions of public policy which
I may say I regard as extremely visionary and impracticable.

The controversy also covered the methods of procedure of both the
Senate and the House, and the fight on "Uncle" Joe Cannon as Speaker,
or on "Cannonism," which characterized the last session of the
Sixty-first Congress, was one of the instances of this difference
of opinion in the party. In a less pronounced manner the Progressives
also have shown an inclination to antagonize and overturn the
customs of the Senate. They feel the restraint of some of the
Senate's established rules, and, together with the radical element
which has been introduced on the Democratic side of the Senate
Chamber, they manifest evident impatience with these regulations.
That fine old term "senatorial courtesy" has lost much of its
meaning as a result of the brusque and breezy manner of the time.
No longer is it said that the young Senator must be seen rather
than heard. Indeed, while f