Jasper County Democrat, Volume 4, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 August 1901 — POLITICS OF THE DAY [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

POLITICS OF THE DAY

An Impossible Doctrine. The National Economist, the national organ of high protection, which has recently been demanding the defeat of Speaker Henderson for re-election for the reason that he has refused to agree not to reappoint Congressman Babcock of Wisconsin on the Ways and Means Committee, contains the following from George L. Reis, superintendent of the Illinois Steel Company: “I believe in a tariff whether we need It or not. Even if it does no good, what harm docs it do? No profit has been made on the iron and steel goods that have been sold abroad. They have been sold at cost to get rid of a surplus and to win a foothold in the foreign market. England had the trade all to herself and she charged higher profits than we did here. Now she has been obliged to sell below cost to keep her market. She cannot stand the pace. When customers abroad learn to like our goods, they will buy them at fair prices, and we can sell at a profit. We can make iron and steel products cheaper than they can. But I believe in a tariff just the same. It insures us a home market under all conditions. If the manufacturers cannot sell their goods, the workmen suffer. ’Trusts give .better wages and cheaper goods. No one is disappointed but the politicians, and they want votes.” Mr. Reis says that American steel makers can manufacture steel goods cheaper than the foreigners. He also admits the American-made steel has been sold abroad cheaper than at home. Yet he favors the continuance of the prohibitory tariff on steel. Why does he favor it? Because It “insures us.a home market in all conditions.” And of what good is this to the steel manufacturer? He is able to charge more at home than abroad because the tariff prevents the corrective of importation—the manufacturer is able to collect from American consumers the §0 to 80 per cent of the steel tariff plus the cost of his goods and a fair profit. One almost loses patience when it is thus boldly asserted that such an organization as the United States Steel corporation, with its billion dollars of inflated capital, on which dividends are regularly paid, has a right to penalize the people of this country because they live on this side of the water rather than the other. It would seem as if, granting as Mr. Reis says, that the American steelmaker can manufacture more cheaply than his foreign competitor, that our people, living closer to the cheapest source of production, should get steel goods cheaper than those who live 3,000 miles away. What would be thought if an organization of farmers, favored by law in some way, should arise, and it should become the accepted thing to charge the people in the growing state $1 per bushel for corn, while the same identical corn was sold in London for 50 cents? Would it not be denounced as an unspeakable outrage, and would not there be an Immediate demand for the repeal of the legislation which permitted and fostered such a condition?

Clay, Morrill, Blaine, even McKinley, never justified the continuance of a protective tariff when it should appear that an Industry In America was able to produce more cheaply than any foreign rival. At first it was said protection was merely to promote infant industries—to give them a chance to get started; then it was said that only such amount of duty was justifiable as would equalize the difference between the American and foreign wages—the American manufacturer not being able to produce as cheaply as the foreigner unless be paid lower wages; now we have admission that the industries are not infant and that the cost of production is less in America, and yet there is a defiant demand to continue a prohibitory tariff on the express ground that- the American consumer shall be fleeced. It is not conrended that the additional price charged in America goes to the workingmen in the form of higher wages. It is admitted that it goes to the manufacturer or else to the foreigner who is able to buy things below cost. We used to be told that the foreigner paid the tariff tax; Mr. Reis practically admits that, as to steel, the extra price collected in this country is given to the foreign buyer. We pay the tariff for him. It Is not conceivable that this latest expression of protection rapacity will find favor with the American people—even with the strictest of the old school protectionists, who talked America for the Americans.

Hnnna and Morgan, Senator Hanna says he Is not trying to settle the steel strike. It is the Senator’s duty to try, all the same. Much is expected of him, and as a matter of good faith he should put bls shoulder to the wheel What if Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan does tell him to keep out—that hts Interference is not required? Can Mr. (anna afford to be obedient to Mr. Morgan merely because be is a billionaire, or something of that sort? Can the leading candidate for the Republican nomination fdr President of the United States—the man wbc has only to say she word and all other candidates will subside—afford to “lay down” to a man who has “nothing but motey?” Mr. Morgan probably doesn’t care If there is a general strike. H will not Interfere with his personal comfort for • minute. He Is not a politician In the

sense of being a candidate for office. He merely wants the power of wealth. To be the richest man in the United States, controlling products and transportation and handling many millions of money and directing the material destinies of milions of men, would no doubt be a prouder position to him than that of Chief Executive of the greatest republic of all time. If this were a monarchy it might be different, but it is even possible that Mr. Morgan would rather be a financial and railroad magnate than a King or an Emperor. It would probably not be putting too fine a point on the subject to say that he has more real, practical power to-day than either Edward VII. or William IL; and it is due to hlfii to say also that he probably has more braius. speaking generally and specifically, than both of these monarchs together. Mr. Morgan uo doubt thinks a great strike now to be the best thing for his ultimate purposes. There was a time, very recently, when the differences between the strikers and the capitalists seemed on the point of adjustment; but when the workingmen’s representatives asked for a modification of the terms of settlement Mr. Morgan peremptorily declined to treat further, and now an army of the employed have been ordered out The great financier knew this would in all probability be the result. His idea was that it would be better for him and the Interests he represented to go into the battle for all It was worth, confident that capital would win In the end, and that the winning would be worth more than years of patched-up peace. He may have expected a hard and protracted struggle, but was serene in the belief that the victory for capital would be signal, and the working people finally so demoralized, humiliated and poverty-stricken that they would not have the heart to make another fight during the remainder of Mr. Morgan’s life. Of course, the distinguished financier may be mistaken about this; but he would not be as rich a man as he is, and the undisputed head of so many enterprises that he Is, if he were not a long-headed man. capable of looking Into the future with approximate accuracy, and willing to take a considerable risk for a tremendous final winning. He is for “business.” He cares for politics and government only as they can be of service to the mighty enterprises In which he is engaged. When he has use for them, especially If matters should come to the crisis of calling out troops, he will let Mr. Hanna know. Can the distinguished Ohio Senator afford to be placed In this position? He Is also a business man, but the world knows more of him as a politician and a commanding factor in the government of the United States as It is now constituted. He regards the rains of heaven, abundant crops, activity in manufacturing, prosperity In business and the steady and certain employment of the working masses at fair compensation as the essential incentives to victory for the party to which he belongs. In which he has so masterfully conducted the avoidance of strikes has been looked upon as a necessity. When the settlement of another former great strike In the teeth of a political campaign was ascribed to Mr. Hanna he did not deny that he was instrumental. Indeed, it was one of the best achievements of his political career. There is greater reason for Mr. Hanna interfering now, because this is a greater strike. Is Mr. Hanna satisfied to quit because Mr. Morgan tells him to? Who’s running things, anyhow?— Cincinnati Enquirer.

Reciprocity and the Tariff. If all the proposed reciprocity treaties were put through the abuses which Mr. Babcock attacks would still remain. Confirm all the Kasson agreements and we shall still have gigantic combinations paying dividends on hundreds of millions of fiction because the tariff enables them to exact oppressive prices from domestic consumers. Perhaps it is because the Kasson treaties do not menace the big combines that those agreements find favor in certain influential quarters.—Washington Post.

Why Was He Reprimands!? Honor has been satisfied. The department has censured Rear Admiral Evans for publishing his strictures upon ex-Secretary Chandler, and the Incident is presumably closed. But the Interesting question ns to whether fighting Bob is reprimanded for telling the truth is left an open one. It Is really understood at this crisis bow the whole truth, or even a grain too much of It, might disrupt the aristocratic branch of the service.—Detroit Free Press. Are Orooniing the Wrong Man. The grooming of Governor Odell for the Presidency is said to be still going on, but so far no distinguished trainer acknowledges to being in charge of the preparation. There Is a widespread belief that If the next President comes from the State of New York bo will not be Odell—or any other Republican.— Cincinnati Enquirer. Cost of Being a World Power. If we must increase our naval power at the ratq of 125,000,000 a yoar we must erect coast defenses and add te our military strength in like proportion, and the question of whether we can afford the outlay becomes at one* a serious one.—Philadelphia Record.