Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 22, Number 83, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 July 1901 — NO TARIFF REVISION. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

NO TARIFF REVISION.

THE REPUBLICAN SENTIMENT STRONGLY AGAINST IT. President McKinley and Leading' Senators and Congressmen Vigorously Opposed to Tinkering with the Duty Schedules at This Time. In response to a request by the American Protective Tariff League for an expression regarding the reopening of the tariff question, either by direct legislation or by the roundabout method of special trade treaties framed for the benefit of a few industries and at the expense of the general body of industries, a number of letters have been received from conspicuous members of the Fifty-seventh Congress. All of these letters are identical in rone and tenor. They are positively adverse to any scheme of meddling with the tariff schedules, now or in the near future. They tally exactly with the expressions of Congressman Taylor of Ohio before the Industrial Commission, and of Congressman Dalzell of Pennsylvania in an interview published after his return from an extended Western tour. A New England Senator writes: “It ig the old story over again—a protective tariff secured after long agitation and effort, resulting in business prosperity; then a movement in the direction of free trade in which those who would have reaped the benefit of protection are foolishly tempted to join. It is very discouraging.” A Mississippi Valley Congressman of marked prominence says: “Nine-tenths of the sentiment in favor of the Babcock bill is based upon Ignorance, misstatements of fact and prejudice growing out of recent consolidation of productive industries.” In a recent interview at Cleveland Senator Hanna declared that he did not believe the President ever said to M. Siegfried that he had ceased to be an ultra-protectionist and that the necessity for protection had largely disappeared. Senator Hanna said:

“From all the talks I have had recently with President McKinley I am of the opinion that he is as great a believer in protection as ever. “This talk that the next Congress will tinker with the Dingley tariff law at the suggestion of the President is all nonsense. The Dingley law is a scientific measure and will last for years to come. The President believes it is as necessary as ever before and will not, in my belief, advocate any changes whatever. He still believes in protecting the American industries wherever it is necessary. “The President, however, is a strong advocate of reciprocity, and would, I think, consider treaties along the line of mutual interest between this country and another. “If another country is willing to offer us something without duty which we need badly we shall be willing to reciprocate by opening the tariff wall a little and giving them something free of duty, as long as it does not interfere w’ith the protection of our industries. “The French reciprocity treaties would have been accepted had it not been for some objectionable tariff features. The treaties as they stood, if ratified by the United States, would have killed the knit goods industry in the New’ England States and the pottery business in Ohio. That is the reason they failed. As long as the United States is able to make reciprocity treaties with foreign countries without injuring American industries they will be made, and gladly.” The following Is from General Grosvenor, the Ohio Congressman, who has been said to be in a peculiar sense the reflector of the views of President McKinley on the floor of the House of Representatives: “Admitting that the repeal of the duties upon certain products of American industry might Injure and even destroy certain of the trusts, agitation of the question of the modification of the present tariff system would do more financial injury to the welfare of the country in one month than all the benefits that the most enthusiastic rainbow chaser of the suggestion has ever dreamed of. Let a party with political pow’er enough solemnly decide that they will enter upon the reorganization of the schedules of the present tariff law and business will stop as quickly as human life will stop when the blood ceases to circulate. By ‘stop’ I do not mean to cease absolutely, but the heart will beat more slowly, and the blood will flow' in paucity of amount and speed. “I do not believe that the placing of our products of iron and steel upon the free list would break up a single trust or impair the value of the stock of the United States Steel Company or any other of the combinations. There is no trouble about the trusts. Under our constitution as at present formed, Congress, in co-operation with tbe-State Legislatures, has ample power to do all that Is necessary, all that is just, all that is fair, in the regulation of combinations of money, capital and labor.”

At the Mercy of Europe. Furthermore, our ocean : borne commerce, in the absence of American ships in which to transport it is at the mercy of Europe. An outbreak of war, the turning loose of a fleet of commerce destroyers by the enemies of Great Britain, w'ould put an instant stop to American exports, because we are dependent upon British ships for the major part of our ocean transportation. Sound considerations of public policy, not the pecuniary Interests of any group of American capitalists, are behind the

proposed legislation to aid tn building up American deep-water shipping. The interests of foreign ship-owners are largely behind the opposition to that measure.—Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Let the Tariff Alone. The majority, sentiment of the Republican party is decidedly against any revision of the protective tariff of 1897. The present unparalleled prosperity of the country dates from the election of President McKinley in 1896 and the enactment into law of the protective tariff of 1896 known as the Dingley law’. It can lie said without fear of contradiction that this Republican tariff turned the tide of national adversity and hard times, and rescued the country from dire distress. The Democratic party predicted that the tariff of 1897 would be a dismal failure: that under Its provisions this country could not increase its export trade and foreign commerce. Both predictions have proved a failure. Foiled in their attempts to discredit the tariff and to make free silver and “militarism” vital issues, the Democratic party undertakes to argue that trusts are an outgrowth of the tariff, and that therefore the protective tariff on all trust-made goods must be placed on the free list. Such a policy would be dangerous, for it would destroy all domestic independent concerns and place the products more firmly than ever in the control of trusts. The policy under which the country has prospered—the bridge over which the people have traversed to success —must not be destroyed. If the tariff is meddled with present prosperity will disappear. Let the tariff alone.—Kalamazoo Telegraph. By Whom the Tariff Ta Needed. This country was never more prosperous than it is right now under the Dingley tariff, and as the prosperity began as soon as the Dtngley tariff was passed, and as there had been no prosperity under the tariff it displaced, it is fair to attribute a large share of the existing prosperity to the Dingley tarIff. There are trusts in Great Britain, where there is no protective tariff, and the biggest trust, so-called, in this country, the Standard Oil Company, has no tariff protection. The trusts do not need the tariff in order to exist, but the independent manufacturers. In order to maintain their competition with the trusts, do need the tariff protection. The larger share of existing labor troubles is due to the demagogic tirades against trusts in which Democratic papers are indulging now in the same fashion that they inveighed before the day of trusts against “robber barons.” The people are not oppressed so far tjy the exactions of the protected trusts or of the tariff. There is not a single article, the product of protected industry, well established in this country, which is not cheaper to-day than it was before the protective duty was imposed. —Louisville Commercial. A Flourishing Growth.

Let Well Enough Alone. , When we are well off it is a good time to quit experiments. The results of the Wilson-Gorman act are a little too fresh In the memory of the people. The reduction In the average tariff by this act was comparatively small, yet it was big enough to paralyze Industry and Inaugurate a financial panic that it has taken several years to recover from. Let well enough alone.—Lincoln (Neb.) Journal. Overtime and Halftime. It will be noted that in aU strike settlements these days, provisions are made for payment for overtime, either at time-amtadialf or double rates. The question of overtime does not concern wage earners during free trade tariffs. Half the workmen are satisfied with full time, and all the rest would be glad of half time.