Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 68, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 April 1902 — IS IT OLD FASHIONED? [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

IS IT OLD FASHIONED?

CLAIM THAT PROTECTION HAS BECOME OBSOLETE. That the Doctrine of Blaine, and Dingley Has Served Its Day and Outlived Its Usefulness to Americaxt’ Labor and Industry. In its issue of March 24 the Poughkeepsie Eagle says: “The American Protective Tariff} League asks us to join in protesting: against any change in the Dingley! tariff in connection with the pending* reciprocity treaties or reciprocity con-, cessions. We respectfully decline. We believe with all our heart in protection? but we believe just ns fully in reciproc- ; ity. The old-fashioned protection, which built up a wall nround our country to keep foreign imports out, has served its day and become obsolete; The protection of the future will take into consideration aH American Interests and will be as much concerned with bringing |nto -the country things that we need.nnd in promoting the export of things which others need, as in keeping out articles which compete with our productions. The American Protective'Tariff League has in time past done some very good service, but it wants to get out of its rut and take a broader view of things. Some of those who assume to speak for it are showing 'Buch a disposition to imitate the Democratic policy of organized negation that they are greatly reducing its reputation and influence.”

Welcoming fair criticism and honest controversy concerning our aims and methods, we gladly print the above expression. It is typical of the view entertained by a very considerable number of important newspapers of Republican proclivities, newspapers which, like bur Poughkeepsie neighbor, formerly believed unreservedly in the principle and policy of protection, but now are of the opinion that it “has served its day nad become obsolete.” The American Free Trade League holds precisely this view, with the differencethat it never "held any other view; it always believed that there should be no wall around our country to keep fweign imports out. Freetraders never did and do not now want to keep foreign imports out. They want them to come in without restriction of any kind. On that line protectionists and ; free-traders have divided ever since the organization of our government.

Is the lino about to be obliterated? Shall we now tear down the wall and let in the foreign imports? Is that what the Poughkeepsie Eagle means when It avows its acceptance of the new doctrine of “reciprocity” and its rejection of “the old-fashioned protection which built up a wall,” etc.? If it does not mean that, what, then, does it mean? “Reciprocity,” as now advocated by many newspapers of Republican proeither contemplates a larger importation of competitive articles and an equivalent displacement of domestic production, or It amounts to nothing. Reciprocity “in articles which we do not -ourselves produce,” and which will not lessen the sum total of employment and wages in this country, would be of relatively little value to foreign producers. That kind of reciprocity we already .have. With “the things we need,” we are amply supplied, and they are nearly all on the free list. A trifle less than half of the total bulk of our imports are non-dutiable. We are liberal buyers of “the things we need,” and there is no tariff on those things. Reciprocity takes no account of articles of this kind. They are wholly excluded from the scheme. What It aims at and insists upon is that we shall tear down the wall and let In a lot of things which we do not need. If we don't- do that, we don’t “reciprocate.” That is the situation in a nutshell, and we are indebted to the Poughkeepsie Eagle for presenting the issue in a shape so practical and tangible. It has assisted in the plain presentment of the question, Has the old-fashioned protection “served its day,” and is it “obsolete?” The Republican party is now engaged in wrestling with that problem in connection with the domestic production of sugar and tobacco. What will be the solution? Not such, 4ye hope, as shall register the decision that protection for each and every domestic Industry Is “old-fash-ioned," is “obsolete” and hns “served its day.”—American Economist. He Continues to Howl.

Unde Sam—What's the matter with that dog? Will nothing satisfy him but another total eclipse of tfie moon? Round Sense. It Is said that as there are no sugar beet raisers in Maine, there Is no occasion for Mr. Littlefield to be interested in their protection. But if the doctrine is to obtain that no Congressman is ttT vote for a protective duty unless it benefits some Industry in his own district, the who'le system will soon be In ruins.—Portland Press*