Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 November 1901 — WHAT HE SAID. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

WHAT HE SAID.

Correct Interpretation of President McKinley’s Speech at Buffalo. The following extract should be properly read and Intelligently accentuated In order to understand precisely where the late William McKinley stood on the questions of trade extension, reciprocity and tariff revision. In his speech at Buffalo the President said: “By sensible trade arrangements, which will not interrupt our home production, we shall extend the outlets for our increasing surplus. “A system which provides a mutual exchange of commodities is manifestly essential to the continued and healthful growth of our export trade. We must not repose in fancied security that we can .forever sell everything and buy little or nothing. If a thing were possible it would not be best for ua or for those with whom we deal. “We should take from our customers such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries and labor. “Reciprocity is the natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development under the domestic policy now firmly established. If perchance some of our tariffs are no longer needed for revenue or to encourage and- protect our industries at home, why should they not be employed to extend and promote our markets abroad?” “By sensible trade arrangements,” said the President. Note the qualification. No trade arrangements can be called sensible other than those “which will not interrupt our home production.” Is there any difficulty in grasping that? What class of commodities should we take from our foreign customers? President McKinley’s answer was: “Such of their products as we can use without harm to our Industries and labor.” Can the meaning of this be misunderstood? Only by those whose selfish interest it Is to misunderstand It. Having plainly stated his idea of the basis on which special trade treaties should be made, the President declared in favor of reciprocity as the “natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development under the domestic policy now firmly established”—that is, the policy of protection. Does anybody doubt that that is what the President said and meant?

As to tariff tinkering—did Mr. McKinley favor it? Not at all. “If, perchance”—note that all important If—it should be found that some of the duties on imports were not required either for revenue or for protection, then, and only then, should such duties be removed in the interest of foreign trade extension. Every protectionist agrees that, “if perchance,” etc. But there must be no jumping at conclusions, no taking for granted that protective duties are no longer needed, no surrender of the principle and policy of protection, no blind leap in the dark, no idiotic tumble into the quagmire of free trade. It Is far from clear at the present time that any duty in the Dingley law schedules can be safely modified or removed. It remains to be seen, and the Republican party of protection will see to it at the proper time and in the proper manner.—American Economist.

Retain the ?ngar Tariff. The proposal to remove the duty on imported raw sugar is not to be taken very seriously, and it is improbable that there is any danger threatened to the sugar beet industry, for more reasons than one. In the first place, the Republican party is not likely to reopen the Tariff question for years to come, and the Democrats are not likely to have the power to make a move in that direction for ten years any way, inasmuch as the United Sttaes Senate has a Republican majority that is not liable to be overcome in that time at least. And even when Tariff revision finally does come, it is scarcely possible that the Tariff on sugar will be removed, if for no other reason than that the Federal Treasury can hardly get along without it, yielding as it does an annual revenue of about $00,000,000. Lastly, there is no reason why the sugar duties should ever be abolished, for they afford a means of raising reveuue that is almost •deal. The Tariff on sugar, whether protective or not, is almost the only one that can be justified, for it is almost the only means whereby the propertyless man can be made to contribute to the support of the Federal government without uudue hardship to himself. No man is too poor to pay his mite to the support of his nation’s government. To levy a direct tax upon the poor man Is not feasible. But if he pays indirectly in the form of an enhanced price on the little sugar that he uses, he does not feel it, and in the aggregate a vast sum accrues yearly to Uncle Sam. The principle is not new, by any means. England has had it in practice for a good many years. And there is no reason why it should not be adopted as a part of the permanent fiscal policy of the United States. To be sure, the sugar trust may desire to have it otherwise, and such influence has more than once availed more with Congress than justice or statesmanship should permit, but the fact remains that $60,000,000 cannot so easily be obtained in any other way. Penn Yan (N. Y.) “Democrat.”

Jollying the Farmer. The Louisville Courier-Journal says that the protective tariff has been used to “jolly” the farmer. That Is exactly where the Courier-Journal Is right. If the farmers of this country have ever had occasion to feel Jolly, It Is now, when, under Dingley law protection, money has come rolling In to pay off mortgages, to buy new equipment. Including the latest and most Improved

brands of agricultural machinery anfl to roll up the account at the savings bank. Yes, the farmers of the country, as a general thing, feel pretty jolly just now', and it is the protective tariff which is responsible for It. There is no doubt about that. And the best of it is that the farmers are not the only people who are feeling jolly, but the jolly effects of protection prosperity have been felt by people in all walks of life everywhere throughout the country. As a producer of jollity the protective tariff has few, if any, equals, and we are glad to see that the Louisville Courier-Journal is at last beginning to recognize the fact.

Nontenu! In December, 1898, the President of the United States and the Governor of Alabama were received and entertained at Tuskegee Institute by Booker T. Washington. Nevertheless, the act of the new President of the United States, in receiving and entertaining Booker T. Washington at the White House a few days ago, is being described by many Southern newspapers as “an outrage” and “a declaration of war.” In the view of the Southern newspapers, the President of the United States may dine with a colored man at a colored man’s home and not depart from the strictest lines of propriety; but if he invites the most distinguished colored man In the country to dine with him at the White House he is guilty of an “outrage.” In other words, the President of the United States may accept the hospitality of a colored man, but he may not return it. This is absurd. The President received, consulted, and entertained Booker T. Washington in his character as President of all the people. There w r as no protest when Mr. Washington advised the President to adopt a new policy as to new appointments of white men in the South. There was no protest when such appointments of white men were made in accordance with his advice. The line was drawn only when the President invited Mr. Washington to dine with him.

We are thirty-five years from the end of the Civil War. We are living at a time when it is the duty of the President of the United States to receive hospitably the representatives of all nations—white, black, or yellow—and all races—white, black or yellow—and yet, when the President in the performance of his duty receives hospitably the chosen representative of 8,000,000 native Americans, there are those who pretend to see in this act of official courtesy an “outrage” and a “declaration of war” on some American institution or institutions. Nonsense!—Chicago Inter Ocean.

A Crushing Indictment, The development of the beet sugar industry has been so rapid that we are near to the time when the whole of the hundred million dollars we used to spend abroad for sugar will go into the pockets of our own people. This nation consumes at least one-fourth of the world’s total product; and of the world’s product two-thirds are made from beets and only one-third from cane. If the counsel and the protests of American free traders had been heeded we should now not grow a pound of sugar outside the cane fields of Louisiana. Because the protectionist principle was received and approved by the people we are about to become independent of outside sources for a necessity of existence and to keep huge profits at home. We make the machinery for the sugar mills from iron from our own furnaces; we have diverted from excessive cereal production land and human beings to a more profitable occupation, and we have moved this nation one huge step further toward industrial independence. It would be difficult to frame an Indictment against the American free trade propagandists more crushing than to quote their own declarations and arguments against the tin plate duties and the beet sugar bounties.—The Manufacturer.

The Belt Ko-m the Mill Going.

A Southern View. While we are not in favor of a tariff that protects trusts and builds up monopolies we believe that the interests of the country and specially the Southern Stntes require some protection from the sugar planter of Cuba and his cheaper labor. The efforts of the Northern States to produce beets for sugar have not been successful, but the cane producing regions of the South offer splendid opportunities for those seeking profitable Investment, providing an opportunity is given the planter. But If a reciprocal tariff agreement is made with Cuba the Southern States will be greatly crippled and only the sugar trusts will be the gainer, for while the reduction In price will destroy the sugar cane business of the Sonth, the duty taken off will not go into the people’s pockets but to the Sugar Trust.—Marshall (Texas) Star. It is estimated that the men of Great Britain spent £250,000 a year on silk hats.