Evening Republican, Volume 16, Number 125, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 May 1912 — Wherein is Taft Wrong? [ARTICLE]

Wherein is Taft Wrong?

The Republican is unable to discover any justice in the opposition to President Taft. And we have been unable to find any person who asserts opposition—wha 4& able to say a serious thing against him. We have talked with townspeople and farmers who say. “Pm against Taft,’’ and we have yet to find the first man who offers ade quate reason for his opposition. Many say: "He favored reciprocity.’ So he did, and so did a majority cl the members of congress. Reciprocity was a diplomatic trade arrangement that James G. Blaip advocated and that resulted in several treaties with foreign governments by which American products were admitted to other countries free of duty or at reduced of other countries were admitted free to this country. The United States diplomatically sought to secure the besl of the trade agreements. Sixteen years ago the government of the United States was wrested from democratic control and rescued from the grip of the Wilson-Gorman tariff law. It was the democratic bill that shut up the factories on the theory that manufacturers were getting fai at the expense of the honest tiller> of he soil and of the laborers. In 1892 people were comparing the cost oi clothing in the United States wit! the cost in England and it was shown that we were paying-50 per cent morehere than in Liverpool. The orators told us the manufacturers were robbing us and enough people believed it to elect Grover Cleveland and a democratic congress. They admitted the necessities of life free, of duty and the factory fires in the United States died out We bought everything wi needed cheaper, but we did not buy very much of it. Men begged for work at a dollar a day and did not find much to do. Corn sold for 12 cents a bushel, wheat for 45 cents, potatoes for 17 cents. In lowa train loads of potatoes were loaded up and shipped out at 10 cents a bushel. We bought things cheaper and according to some present day notions we ought to have been happy, but we were not. Democrats repudiated their president and their pet policy of free trade and William Jennings Bryan sprang into the liemelight with a new issue. Richard Bland and others had proclaimed the same theory and it remained for the “silver tongued” to charm a distracted convention and make them believe that there was a “heaven born parity between silver and gold” and that silver bullion and farm products went hand in hand in value. The American people were told that the dollar was too good and that It needed cheapening so that we could get it easier. The siren song of 16 to 1 was hummed from coast to coast and William Bryan, with a mortgage on his Nebraska farm, told honest people that mortgages and debts should be paid with a currency worth 50 cents on the dollar. It was an attractive proposition and a lot of people believed that “free silver” meant prosperity without labor and there was a time three months before the election when Bryan would have been elected hands down on an issue that advocated direct dishonesty. But, as Taft says, “in the calm judgment of the American people there is nothing-mearer—riglrt-than the will of God,” and the people had had time to think and they wanted the smoke returned to the factory chlmnies and they elected William McKinley and a congress that passed the Dingley tariff bill and strengthened American honor by making gold the real standard of finance. The farmer and the manufacturer shook hands in an alliance that made both successful and American labor raised to $1.25 and sl-50 and $1.717 and mo W ta S2JHL and $2.25 per day. And oats and corn and wheat and hogs and cattle and hay advanced in price. The United States became the greatest nation in the world and its people the most prosperous. Then Die democrats told us that the American dollar was so cheap it would not buy enough of the necessities of life and that we needed to reduce the cost of living by cheapening the price of what we bought And our people listened again and in 1910 there were democratic victories and all on account of the “high cost of living.” The states that border Canada were especially loud in their denunciation of the high cost of living and it was proposed to enter into a treaty with Canada for greater trade advantages, admitting Canadian products free of duty and securing the admission of American products into Canada free of duty. President Taft wanted the treaty. He had the vote of 1910 as his guide and the success of other reciprocal treaties as an assurance. The measure passed both branches of congress and was up to Canada for ratification. Canada did not like the provisions of the .treaty. They said so most emphatically In the bitterest campaign .ever held, there and the reciprocal treaty was not ratified. Peculiarly the states that complained loudest at the high cost of living were Die first to condemn a measure calculated to partially relieve that condition. I Reciprocity with Canada would hare

had but limited effect on the priees of American faraj products. It would not have effected the prosperity of a single farmer. As a matter of fact, much of our wheat, corn, beef and pork goes for export to the same countries that receive the same products for Canada. Our farmers have no just cause to condemn our president for having-- advocated- a measure that seemed to be demanded by the consumers of the country and we do not believe and hope that our readers do cot believe that the holding of a different opinion on one subject is sufficient cause to condemn the one of jpposite belief. America was never so prosperous as now. We have been for three years operating under the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill, which some so hastily condemned and- which The Republican said at the time was doubtless the best tariff measure ever adopted. Its proof has been in the way it has operated to the general welfare of the farmer, the manufacturer, the businessman, the railroads and to all honest business. It is not perfect but it is a big improvement over the Dingley measure on which Theodore Rooseveit was content to “stand pat” in 1900 and 1904. And it should be plain to every one that President Taft is anxious to correct its imperfections for his initial message to congress this term urged the adoption of a new woolen schedule in conformity with the findings of the tariff board. William Howard Taft’s public life is without a blemish. As judge he was just and fearless. As governor of the phillipihe Islands be brought order out of chaos and started the people of those fertile but abused islands toward agricultural and commercial success. As secretary of war be was cautious, and economic and he instituted reforms that have added to the efficiency of the army in many ways. As secretary of state he proved his statesmanship and diplomaed and when trouble was anticipated with Japan it was he who was delegated to go there to assure that nation of our friendly offices and his visit quieted the war talk so prevalent five years ago. During the eight years Theodore Roosevelt was vice-president find President Mr. Taft was in his cabinet and at the end of that time Theodore Roosevelt pronounced him the acme of honor, Integrity, statesmanship and personal purity. Can it be that his life of complete success shall be rewarded by the desertion of some who disagreed with him on a single measure? Let us rise above such prejudice and grant to him the support we ourselves would b6p« for under similar conditions.