Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 January 1902 — ARE WE PATRIOTIC? [ARTICLE]

ARE WE PATRIOTIC?

FREE-TRADERS WORRIED ABOUT THIB QUESTION. They Argue that We Love Onr Country Leaa Because We Are Prospering So Greatly ■ Under the influence of a ProtectlvlflßSC^-: s This is the caption of the last article •ent out by tije. Free Trade League ©rer the signature of Prof. John Itascom of Williams College. The two words, Protection and Patriotism, certainly go well together and are closely related. But, says Prof. Bascom, “Protection as developed in the United States, Is profoundly opposed to patriotism.” And yet he does not prove it, or even attempt to. He tells us that it beget 6 personal strife, but does not tell ns wherein personal strife and ambition become inimical to patriotism. Continuing, the professor says: “The little kernel of sound theory that may In the beginning have lain at the bottom of protection was shortly lost sight of in a greedy struggle between ever-increasing claimants to retain old and win new advantages.” JLt Is encouraging to see an old-time free trader admitting that there was ever even a kernel of sound theory in the principle of protection, though it has been lost sight of in the struggle for advahtage. Does the professor mean to say that the strife to excel is unpatriotic? Would he have our inventors stop thinking, our miners stop digging, our farmers stop planting, our mechanics stop fabricating, and so cease to retain and gain advantage not only among themselves but over the peoples of other countries? Does he want us to go back to the habits of the aborigines and live the lives of savages? He complains because “we have set no limits to individual enterprise.” Why should We set a limit to ambition, to attainment and accomplishment? And then he complains again because “the policy of private thrift, which gained such a foothold in protection, has spread everywhere.” If the professor is preaching socialism or anarchy, that Is one thing, but ts he is preaching free trade because It would do away with competition and destroy commercial advantages, that is another. He concludes his little “piece” as follows: “Patriotism cannot thrive in the atmosphere we have provided for it. If we would restore and strengthen love of country, we must get back to the prosperity of the masses of men—the people and the nation—as the true aim of government.” Does the professor question our love of country? Was he awake during the Spanish war, when millions were angry only because they could not light for the Stars and Stripes? Did he not for months see Old Glory waving from every flagstaff, from every building, and from every house? Who is there, outside the little band of American Oobdenites, that does not think we could lick any country on earth, or, if needs be, all of them put together? Does not the professor see any other paper but the Springfield Republican? As for “getting back to the prosperity of the masses of men”—back where? Back to 1837, or t0'1857, or to 1893-G? When have “the masses of men—the people and the nation”—been so prosperous as they are to-day? It seems incredible that a man of average enlMghteninent could put forth such twaddle as this paper of Prof. Bascom’s. It is not worth noticing except to show to what pitlnble ends the Free Trade League is obliged to go to get matter to send out to the few country papers that will print its stuff. Surely the free trade Issue In the United States is at a low ebb indeed when it must depend on such argument for support. Prof. Bascom knows no more about patriotism than he does about protection. He knows no more about the ambitions and national characteristics of the people of the United States than he does about the uncivilized tribes of darkest Africa; or else, for the sake of his pet theory, he would do away with all exertion and all labor, of mind or body. He should study the strenuous life of his countrymen, from the President down to the urchin with his bundle of “extras.” He should take a trolley ride out of Wlllinmstown to Milllvllet>r Furnace Plains, and look at the wheels go round. He should take a progressive daily or weekly paper and read the current history of his country. Or, he might take the President's message by installments and gather a few Ideas concerning the progress nnd achievements of our institutions. He should get a little American flag nnd count the stripes nnd then the stars. He should get a portrait of Washington and of McKinley, and little by little study the lives of our other great men. It may be a hopeless case, hut it would seem as If even Prof. Bascom might be Injected with a little American spirit and patriotism. American Economist.

Reciprocity with Cuba. Washington dispatches Indicate a decided change of sentiment regarding the proposed reciprocal arrangement with Cuba. Members of the Ways and Menus Committee are reported to have changed their attitude from that of opposition to one of acquiescence. This Is ns (t should be. That portion of the people to whom the majority In Congress .should give heed are decidedly In favor if reducing the present duty on the products of Cuba Imported Into the United Rtates so as to give the people of the Island an advantage in our market. Only one Republican pnper of any promlnenee In the country assails tbo proposition. A few periodicals In the Hast which always advocate a pro-

hlbitory tariff are standing oat. On the other side to the last declaration of the late President McKinley, the argent recommendation of President Roosevelt and the'masg of people who believe that Cuba has claims upon us. Instead of $30,000,000 of merchandise "wETcITwe how selTCuba we can 7 under reciprocal arrangement, sell $30,000,000. —.—— Reciprocal Reciprocity. Reciprocal reciprocity, that which shall help, but not hurt, domestic industry appeal's to be the opinion and desire of the majority of the members of the national reciprocity convention at Washington. Many of them would like a treaty that would reduce the tariff on the products of other Industries, and thereby gain Increased sale for their products in foreign countries, but all of them are opposed to reduction of the tariff on their own products, just as was expected before the reciprocity convention assembled. The present prospect is that the free traders will be defeated in their efforts for reciprocal treaties that will enable the American trusts to sell their goods still cheaper in foreign lands! That is about all that can be gained by reciprocal treaties on products that will compete with American labor, and it can be safely said that every such treaty will be injurious to American labor and business, because all such would create doubt and distrust as to the future, and doubt and distrust have always injured American labor' and business. Every honest American citizen desireß to see all the trusts destroyed that sell their goods at higher than competitive prices, but they cannot be exterminated by reciprocal treaties, nor by free trade. The American people have the power to crush all such trusts by refusing to purchase their products, and every trust of that character will be annihilated within a few months or years. Reciprocity that will reciprocate on noncompeting products will be satisfactory to all the people of this nation, and there are sufficient products of that character to enable all the free trndc the American people desire. The protective tariff has made the United States the greatest nation on the earth, in all great and good respects, within less than forty years. No other nation in all the history of the earth can make anything like the showing of progress and wealth made by the United States since the Morrill tariff was" enacted in 1861, for since that tariff became the principal law of the nation the United States has made greats.progress than all the remainder of the world combined. It was that tariff that convinced the world that steel rails can be made in the United States, and It was the same principle of the McKinley tariff that convinced even the free traders of this country that tin plate can be made in America. So it has been with the many thousands of articles now fully supplying the markets of this country and seeking increased sale in foreign lauds through reciprocal trade in the products of others.—Des Moines Register.

One-Sided Reciprocity.

To illustrate one-sided reciprocity, let ua name Canada. Canada wants free access to onr markets, and in return will cheerfully give us free access to hers. Canada has 5,000,000 people; the United States has 80,000,000. Her people can buy of us, provided Great Britain does not demand her trade, onesixteenth of what we would naturally buy of her. Though her soil is American and she controls a great deal of the North American continent, the wages paid by her for labor are 20 to 50 per cent lower than in .the United States. She would, of course, fill our markets with cheap goods to compete with better paid American labor. Such a condition would undoubtedly help Canadian immigration, of which there has been practically none for half a century. It is better for the United States tu attract this immigration to her own States and territories, where, despite tne fact that we have sixteen times as many people as Canada on a smaller area, there is yet room, with only a small fraction of our magnificent resources developed.—New Haven Palladium.

The Defeat of Cantrill.

The defeat of Judge Cantrill, who was an aspirant for the United States Senate before the Kentucky Legislative caucus, by the emphatic vote of 02 to 37, does not indicate that bis travesty of Justice In the trials of the men accused of knowledge of the murder of Mr. Goebel has met with that unbounded approval of the Democratic party which expresses itself In promotion to higher position. It is probable that the Democratic party is not so proud of Judge CantriU’s Judicial antics that it wishes to have him pointed at In Washington as the bent exponent of Kentucky Justice.—lndianapolis Journal.

Caban Tariff Redaction.

judging from Washington reports, the sentiment In Congress Is fast crystallising In favor of a 25 per cent reduction of dut/ ou . all products of Cuba imported luto thla couutry. There is uo reason why It should not be done, since no Interest In the United States will suffer by such n reduction, while the concessions mnde the United States I>y Cuba will give us the valuable and growing markets of the Island.—lndiana State Journal.

A Stubborn Fact.

That reciprocity convention was a cruel disappointment to the tnflff reformers. They are now up against tbo fact that the end of protection Is not yet In sight, and as Sam Jones says,<fa fact cannot bp gotten over nor around. It must be “camped’* by and “sot” up wKb.—Clyde (N. C.) Journal.