American Economist

Either Protection Is a National Policy,
or It Is Unworthy of
Support.

Tariff Rippers Unwilling to Await the
Investigations of the Tariff
Board.

Albany Journal.

It is improbable, even with the spite alliance of Insurgent Republican senators with the Democratic members of the United States Senate, which may be broken as suddenly as it was formed, that Tariffreduction bills will reach the President.

ONE-SIDED GAME IS PLAYED OUT. that do not comprehend this principle, they that do not comprehend this principle, they THEY DO NOT WANT INFORMATION. will have to be taught. The war on New is England manufacturers well inaugurated, and it should be continued until New England becomes a willing consumer of Western foods. The time may come in this country when Protection may be maintained as an industrial policy and tabooed as an agricultural policy; but the American industries are not yet sufficiently dominant to enable them thus to make the Tariff cut both ways. New England shall be ready to stand by Protection as a principle and shall send Lodge and Crane onto the floor of the Senate to declare that New England craves Western food to eat as it craves the Western market for New England fabrics, then may the Republican party come together again on the Protection platform. But the one-sided game is played out. The notice that it is over is well delivered.

Nevada (Ia.) Representative. The Down-East Republicans who from selfish motives are giving support to the Canadian reciprocity scheme are getting notice of what is coming to them if they keep on. It has been funny for many people who live by means of the manufacture of woolen and cotton goods to support the President's Canadian campaign, on the theory that it will give to them cheaper foods. At the same time they have fancied that they could strike down Protection for agriculture and maintain it for manufactures. But while the Democrats have passed through the House the Canadian measure and have followed it up with the so-called "Farmers' Free-List," which no one takes very seriously, they have also followed it up with another measure for the revision of the wool schedule and are following that with still another bill for the revision of the cotton schedule. These wool and cotton bills strike right at the vitals of New England industry, and if the road to prosperity is through Tariff reductions to cheaper living then these bills are leading directly to cheaper clothing. The wool bill has passed the house with a considerable Republican vote as well as all the Democrats but one, and in the Senate it has been referred to the finance committee with instructions to report by July 10. The Bill Already Has Been Reported Adversely.

It is the instruction to report that constitutes the notice to the industrial East that Tariff-ripping is a game that two can play at. The majority for the instruction was decisive, 39 to 18, and the Republicans who have been following Taft as well as a number of others who have had sense enough not to follow him understand as they have not understood before that when the industrial East sacrifices the agricultural West it puts its own industries in peril. What has happened with respect to the wool bill is reasonably certain to happen again when the cotton bill reaches the Senate. The instructions in behalf of the wool bill were carried by a combination of Insurgent Republicans and Democrats; but a combination of the Insurgents with the Democrats cannot be made a matter of reproach by the administration crowd, when the President himself seeks to carry his pet policy by going to the Democrats for his chief dependence. The Western senators have resorted to the only defense they could possibly make effectively for their constituents.

Protection is a national policy or it is unworthy of support. The industrial market belongs to the home producers of food as distinctly as the agricultural market belongs to the home producers of fabrics, and if there are Republicans of standing

When

Our advice to administration and senate, so far as they are speculating in Canadian lands or' Canadian stocks, is to close their deals, leave the gullible public to hold the sack, and adhere once more to the national policy of Protection.

Equal Protection to All.

The one distinctive tenet of Republicanism is equal Protection to all American industries which justify Protection, and upon that basis impartial trade with all .nations. If that is not Republicanism then there is no Republican party, for upon that platform have all recent Republican victories been won. That doctrine, whether right or wrong, is clear and logical, and raises a definite issue before the people. Fake "reciprocity" is merely a conflict between interests and classes of which we already see the results in demagogic appeals, first to the urban population under the cry of "cheap food" and now to the farmers on the plea of paying them for what they have lost. The Republican doctrine is to Protect manufacturers, which give work to urban population, and also to Protect farmers that they may be able to buy manufactured products. The Democratic doctrine is to Protect neither city nor country people, and they favor "reciprocity" only as a means of reaching their end by a see-saw -incidentally effectually smashing the Republican party, were such a thing possible.-Cambridge (Md.) Journal.

An Unreasonably High Price. Congressman Good has sized up this reciprocity business correctly. He says: "The more I study this question, the more thoroughly convinced I have become that there is absolutely nothing in the proposed treaty for the United States with the exception that it might mean cheaper print paper for the publishers of newspapers. I feel that the price which we would pay for this benefit would be unreasonably high." Congressman Good can afford to stand on that.-Cedar Rapids Republican.

If, however, such a thing should come to pass, the President will have full justification for vetoing such legislation, in the fact that he has made it known that the Tariff board, which has worked steadily for months to secure information bearing upon certain schedules of the Tariff law, cannot have its report ready until next December.

Since the experts who have been devoting their entire time to investigation and study of the schedules, with a view to gathering all information about cost of production here and abroad which is necessary to make a basis for recommendations, have not yet been able to complete their task, it follows logically that the framers of the Tariff bills which the Democrats are trying to force through the Congress could not in a few weeks have gained information that would be a basis for intelligent legislation.

Those bills are solely for political effect. They provide for Tariff reduction because that is the issue which the Democratic party is trying to keep paramount, regardless of resulting injury to the interests of the American people.

If such legislation should come before the President he will be justified in vetoing it for these reasons, that it must be ill-considered, because hasty, and that the Tariff board was appointed for the solę purpose of ascertaining whether further Tariff revision was advisable or necessary, and if so, to make recommendations upon which it could be based.

Those who honestly believe that further revision is in order will uphold the President if he finds himself in a position to decide the fate of such legislation, for they will want it done right, and not arbitrarily, or on fragmentary information, in the brief time of an extraordinary session which was called for a different, specifically stated purpose. Therefore they will agree that the Tariff board's report should be awaited.

After receiving the reports of his crop experts all over the United States Secretary Wilson gives the assurance that the crops are going to be so large that prosperity for another year is assured. He might have added that the country may even survive the Democratic tinkering with the Tariff and the Republican party wandering after the false god of Canadian reciprocity. Cedar Rapids Republican.

THOSE UNSELFISH PUBLISHERS.

Will Their Employees and Subscribers Get the Benefit of Free-Trade in Paper.

J. Jinks in the New York Republican. Our national lawmakers, now in the throes of that phase of Tariff tinkering described as the "reciprocity" bill, are unconsciously revealing in their struggle with that measure a fly-in-the-amber brand of patriotism which in the light of the much talked about but seldom realized "higher statesmanship" is as funny as a crutch. Astonishingly admirable as were these gentlemen in rushing to the support of President Taft in his ambition to establish the Canadian pact entire, it has developed that they have encountered in their simple zeal a cooling process.

First and foremost rose the realization that cheaper print paper would not represent a benefit for the whole people. Second, it was borne home to them that leaders of both parties were beginning to feel the pressure of stern opposition which the farmers of the country brought to bear against reciprocity. A review of the situation disclosed to their vision certain other hard facts. It was shown that the fight against the removal of the wood pulp and paper Tariff was being led by publishers established in cities, more particularly by those in Eastern cities and largely in New York City. These publishers, it is well known, do not conduct their enterprises as philanthropies. This fact was speedily recognized by the legislators many of whom displayed wholesome acumen by sounding sentiment "back home." The sentiments of the agricultural constituents of the Southern and Western delegation in Congress are a matter of record-a record of protest.

In New York that spirit of protest is being made manifest in no feeble way and in this State Republicans particularly are beginning to have it forced upon them that the increasing opposition to the publishers' Tariff demands is being supplied largely by the farming communities. A wide diversity of opinion has resulted and many are seeing hope of a solution of the problem only in the Root amendment to the "reciprocity" bill. Meanwhile the rich New York publishers are struggling to "accelerate sentiment" with a view to crystalizing belief that the current price of print-paper is "excessive, unreasonable and unfair" and have entered upon a campaign the object of which is to prove, willy nilly, that these United States are doomed to join the demnition bow-wows unless they can get the Tariff off Canadian wood pulp and paper and increase their bank balance at somebody else's expense.

'Twas ever thus. Changes in the Tariff have always made a lot of noise. But in the case of the afore-mentioned publishers. I would rise and remark that as yet I have heard nothing from them that even sug

gests a promise that if they can save a few hundreds of thousands of dollars each year by the change they want in the "reciprocity" bill the lot of their employees will be improved. Nor do I expect to hear anything of the kind. Paper is about the cheapest item in the cost of publishing the big dailies, but the people are not told this. And for that matter I don't believe the people care a rap whether it is or is not. The cost of living and an improvement of business generally is what the people expect from "reciprocity." They have no interest in the aims of rich newspapers that want to get richer.

I have discussed this question with many intelligent men of our party and I have found that there is a preponderance of sentiment against any action on the Tariff that will hurt our chances up the State. I have also found a unanimity of opinion that the campaign some of the big dailies of this city are waging against the Root amendment is what it actually is, a fight to legislate an increase in the bank balances of publishers in the cities-nothing more, nothing less.

Political Pinheads.

"You can't be a Democrat if you believe the industry out of which you make your living, and which would perish without Protection, should receive a reasonable measure of Protection," say some of these political pinheads who know no more about the fundamentals of Democratic faith than they do about the method of computing the time down the cycloidal arc. You can't be a Democrat if you don't believe in the doctrine of 16 to 1. You can't be a Democrat if you believe in an income tax or if you don't believe in an income tax. You can't be a Democrat if you are not a civil service reformer or if you are a civil service reformer. You can't be a Democrat if you-but what's the use. Thomas Jefferson had red hair and Andrew Jackson wore his hair pompadour. You can't be a Democrat unless you've got red hair and wear it pompadour. That lets Hampden Story and all other bald-headed men out of the party. -Crowley (Ia.) Signal.

Once Is Enough.

The Vinton Eagle calls attention to the fact that no farmer's organization has extended an invitation to President Taft to address it upon the virtues of a reciprocity treaty with Canada, like unto the one that is now being discussed in the Senate. We might also call your attention to the fact that the farmers do not believe the President in his statements that the farmers are not to be "hurted." A farmer does not need to have his fingers burned more than twice until he takes a hint. The Democrats told the farmers they would not be hurt with Free-Trade clause on farmers' products in the Wilson-Gorman Tariff bill, but bitter experience proved to the farmers that the Democrats lied.Colfax (Ia.) Clipper.

AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FAILURE.

Democrats Admit the Wilson Tariff Was Bad, but Don't Know How to Make a Better One.

St. Louis Globe-Democrat. "To be sure," says the Republic, "wool was free in the Wilson bill, but the Wilson bill had a lot of things that won't be found in the Democratic Tariff legislation of the future." But an acknowledgment of past failure is no assurance that the Democratic party is better qualified than in 1894 to make a Tariff. It had at that time control of all branches of the government. For the only time in the last fifty years the people had given the party full power to act. It proceeded to pass the Wilson Tariff law, which became identified with a long period of business calamity. The people, alarmed as well as disgusted, elected a Republican House in 1894, and continued to do it until 1910, when through a Republican failure to vote, a Democratic House came in. Though the other branches are not Democratic, the new House is engaged in Tariff ripping, in order, as it imagines, to make party capital for 1912. It denounces Protection and yet it is pusillanimous in what it is doing for Free-Trade.

The promise that the next Democratic Tariff, if the party gets a chance to make one, will be different from the Wilson law, is simply a promise intended to offset a notorious fizzle in legislation. Promises from such a source are cheap. New enterprises in the United States are halted because the country fears another period of incompetency, dull times, lack of employment and general suspension of confidence. A Democratic organ that, in referring to the future, begins with the statement that the Wilson law will not be repeated, admits much more than it intended. The Democratic era of the Wilson law was a catastrophe. But it also stands as the latest sample of what happens when the Democratic party gets national control. No beggar on horseback ever rode to his destination more surely and promptly.

Why Not Surrender?

If Mr. Penrose can accept the unsupported statements of a lot of newspapers with an ax to grind—that the people are yearning for reciprocity-he ought to make "no bones" of falling in with their assertion that the country is languishing for Free-Trade.

The evidence in one case is as good as in the other, so what is the use of making a fuss over the matter? Why not surrender and be done with it?

There will be plenty of time for inquiry and repentance when the people wake up and ask what has happened, as they were compelled to do on former occasions when their desire for cheapness was realized. -San Francisco Chronicle.

CURRENT NEWSPAPER COMMENT.

Editorial Expressions on Matters Relating to the Tariff and "Reciprocity."

Sees the Handwriting.

It looks strange to the Iowa farmer, this argument that the Canadian arbitration treaty will not hurt the farmer any, while the main demand for the treaty was to lower the cost of living, and by this treaty the products of the Iowa farm are the only products hit. The Iowa delegation in Congress was not slow to catch the real drift of the treaty, and the Iowa farmers are not fooled. Already their farm returns are showing the effects of the agitation alone. What will they be when the treaty is ratified and the country is flooded with the products of the Canadian farm? We're on the way back toward ten cent oats, and fifteen cent corn, and two dollar hogs. The Iowa farmer is seeing the handwriting and you can't convince him that he will be benefited with his Protection taken away from him.-Dayton (la.) Review.

in the price of the manufactured articles which he must have. If the old established and well to do farmers who are near the Eastern markets, and who are not obliged to pay the added freight charges for what they buy see disaster in reciprocity, how much more danger is there to the farmers of Montana, who sustain a heavy loss in the sale of his wheat and other grains owing to the allowance for freight charges on the long haul. If the axe is going to fall let manufacturers receive a cut as well as the farmer.Lewistown (Mont.) Argus.

Is That a Fair Deal?

The Root amendment, as we understand it, provides that Canada may have free entry for paper when the restrictions placed by the various provinces are removed. That, at least, would be fairer. As the matter now stands, Americans are not getting sufficient raw material, because Canada prevents it. Still, it is proposed to give her our markets without restriction. Is that a fair deal?

For ourselves, we believe prices will be lower on paper if the industry be not driven out of this country. The attacks on Senator Root are unjust and are intended to be selfish. Selfishness very often defeats itself.-Brooklyn Times.

Going to Get What It Has Sought! So far as the Canadian pact is concerned, it is strictly in line with Insurgent and Democratic contention for lower Tariff, and this is shown by the fact that Democrats in Congress and out of it are not only standing solidly by it, but they propose to go still farther if possible and tack on a general revision of the schedules for the purpose of throwing our markets open to the products of cheap labor in foreign countries. There are indications that the country is going to get what it has sought, another experience like that during the low Tariff era of 1894-97.-National Farmer.

Will Have a Fearful Bill to Settle. Canadian "reciprocity" has again passed the House of Representatives by the aid of Democratic votes. The Republican vote this time was 67 for the treaty and 78 against it. There will be a larger vote than this against it in the Senate, comparatively. To Iowa Republicans it seems strange that President Taft will persist in forcing it on to the country in the face of an adverse vote of his own party. With the Democrats it is a step towards Free Trade. We do not believe it has an honest Democratic vote in Congress. They do not want reciprocity. They want Free Trade. If President Taft succeeds in forcing the treaty by the help of Democrats he will have a fearful bill to settle with his own party. All the Republicans from Iowa, except Hubbard, of the 11th district, voted against the treaty.-Vinton (Ia.) Eagle.

This represents what the wool grower got for his mutton and lamb during these years. Every sensible American must know that sheep cannot be raised in this country for this money, and that the consumer could not ask the wool grower to sell his product at a lower price.

The average consumption of mutton in this country is just ten pounds per capita per year, therefore, the sheep men геceived just 552 cents for the mutton consumed by each person last year. If the consumers paid more than five and onehalf cents per pound for their mutton last year, the middleman got the difference, and no Tariff can reach him. The move to place meats upon the free list is evidently promoted by the Meat Trusts, as they now control the packing houses of South America and their representatives are in Australia and New Zealand arranging for the purchase of the packing plants of those countries.

For many years the Meat Trust has been preparing for free meats by the construction of a line of packing houses covering every seaport town in the United States from Maine to Florida and from California to Washington. Any meats that are imported into this country will necessarily pass through the hands of the beef trust before they reach the consumer, and the latter has no reason to hope for any reduction in price by reason of this fact.

If any person in this country derives any benefits from free meats it will be the Beef Trust and not the consumer.

Why Business Is Backward. Beyond question the principal reason for existing backwardness of business is the doubt which obtains as to legislation at this special session of Congress, and this doubt is engendered by the fact that the Democrats have the House. Physical and financial conditions are favorable, and the great working time of the year is at hand, but things do not move as they

should and there is no such normal development as there ought to be in a country which adds $10,000,000 a day to its actual wealth. This is because, despite the surprisingly large "vote of confidence" that was given the Democrats at the polls last November, the captains of industry and the banking community do not have real confidence in that party. Among all the bills introduced by the House majority this session there is not a single piece of constructive legislation. It is all either destructive or of a nature intended to disturb the present basis of operations in so far as business is concerned. But Chairman Underwood is not bothered about such matters a little bit.-Pittsburg Gazette Times.

Taft Will Bear the Blame. President Taft is getting a taste of the unthanking Democratic bunch that he has become entangled with in the reciprocity and Tariff legislation. In return for his efforts to help them with their bungling of the wool Tariff they are laying at his door the failure of the 1909 Tariff on wool, to meet the approval of the sheep and wool industry hating Democrats. Thus if their wool Tariff is a success and beneficial to the people Taft is to have no credit, but if it proves a failure (which it will) Taft will bear the blame-Mulhall (Okla.) Enterprise.

A reciprocity measure that is not reciprocal in its provisions is anything but thoroughly

Tribune.

Republican.