Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 35, Number 88, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 July 1903 — POLITICAL COMMENT. [ARTICLE]

POLITICAL COMMENT.

Osins All on One Side. The millers of St. Paul and Minneapolis favor reciprocity so they can get their wheat cheaper, and we presume other Interests affected would favor, reciprocity for the same reason. While declaring that they wish reciprocity because it would he an advantage to this country, the fact Is they want It because it would benefit themselves. Do they pretend that this cheaper Canadian wheat, if admitted free, would benefit the American wheat grower as well as tjie Minnesota millers? They have not the faqe to make such a declaration because they know it would be laughed at. They are often cheapwheat, not dearer, and cheaper Canadian wheat means cheap American wheat. This is also true of oats, barley, potatoes, poultry, eggs, .cheese, butter, hogs, cattle, sheep, wool, vegetables and fruits. They are all much cheaper In Canada than In the United States, and their free entry into this country would most assuredly cut down prices now paid American farmers for those staples. Let us look at the situation as it really is. The Canadians are trying by every means In their power to build up their country and develop Its resources. This is right and proper, nnd altogether commendable. But they find that to attract people to the great Northwestern territory extending from the western shores of Lake Superior to the Pacific, markets must be as-

sured for the products they would raise. Under present conditions their market is Liverpool, nnd thousands of miles must be traversed by railway before a shipping pert is reached, wh'ch is certainly a great handicap to the settlors who may go there, and has prevented the rapid settlement ofl that big country. Now, if Those settlers could market their grain and live stock across the border in the United States it would be of great advantage to them financially, and settlers would flock there by the thousands. Even as It is, a good many American farmers have moved to that country, nnd thousands more would take advantage of its cheap lands could a market for their products be assured over the border. The cost of transporting their products to markets of Great Britain eats Up all the profits and leaves nothing for the producer. It Is to give the farmers of the Dominion a better chance that reciprocity with the United States is desired by Canadians, not to help American producers. They know quite well that the staples produced In the Canadian provinces are those that can be prdduced in endless quantities in this country. They also know that the cheap lands and virgin soil of the Canadiau Northwest could compete advautageously with the high priced lands in the older States, more or less denuded of their original fertility. Reciprocity, therefore, would simply mean the development of the Canadian Northwest and older provinces at the expense of American producers, and' with that development would’ come the milling industry and competing lines of transportation that would finally rob the Minnesota miller of the advantage he would enjoy for a few years. And he would be aiding all the time in the development of his finally successful competitor. The Canadian Northwest Is so immense a country that if fairly populated it could grow all the grain required by Great Britian and the Importing countries of Europe. It would be suicidal for Americans to aid In putting that country in a position to do so.—Michigan Farmer. The Ohio Idea. 'Xbe Ohio idea is that Republicans phould keen their bands off the best and most Beneficial tariff system ever devised. It Is against taking any chances iu the way of “reform” Just to please somebody who has grown restless .because the country Is too prosperous and because somebody—nearly everybody— Is making too much money. It Is a “stand pat” Idea. It Is to re-elect the famous “stand patter,” Marcus A. Hanna, to the Senate of the United States. It Is to place In the executive chair Myron T. Herrick, one of the ablest and strongest Republicans ever produced in a State famous for hatching out grea£, Republicans. It is sound, safe, aane in its unmitigated Republicanism and Fro

tectlonism. It “opposes all attacks upon this (the Protective) policy,” whatever the pretext, whether It be “reciprocity,” “trusts,”* or any other pretext for relaxing Protection and favoring Free-trade. It admits—what every sensible man admits—that “changing conditions” may some time call for readjustment, and that “possible benefits”—tyirely possible but altogether improbable—of reciprocity may in the dim future justify some alteration of the tariff schedules. It insists, however, first, last and all the time, that “Protection as a principle and policy must be administered by the friends of .American prosperity and must not be sacrificed.” Upon ,the question of the tariff the Ohio Republican State convention of 1903 stands definitely committed by the following declaration: “The protective tariff policy of the Republican party has made the United States the greatest industrial nation, astonished the world with the tremendous development of our boundless resources, added vastly to our foreign commerce, greatly increased the prosperity of Hit farmer and'has advanced American labor to the best scale of living ever 1 attain'd. We oppose all attacks upon this policy, whatever the pretext, as tending to bring back the disastrous days of Democratic tariff revision and free-trade. Changing conditions and the possible benefits of reciprocity may call for timely re-

adj laments of schedules, but protection as a principle and a policy must be administered by the friends of American prosperity and must not be sacrificed.” No “fads,” no “isms,” here. No evasion, no straddle, no trimming to , suit anybody’s theories about “reform- * iug” the tariff. Nothing but plain, old fashioned, common sense Republicauiuin. That is the Ohio idea.—American Economist

Of What Avail? Senator Hanna’s expression of fervid faith in a protective tariff as a means of promoting prosperity seems Ao have jarred upon the nerves of the New York Evening Post. No freetrader likes to hear or read that kind of talk! So the Evening Post sneerIngly says: “With his praise pf air. Roosevelt, he mingled greater praise of the high tariff. It was a miraculously perfect thing. It was the cause of all our prosperity. Of what avail was It for the Creator to give us forests and mines, until the party of protection came along and offered Americans a tariff bounty to work them? To be perfectly frank with our free-trade neighbor, we don’t mind saying that “until the party of protection came along” the people of this' country were not realizing much out of the uncut timber and the unmined ores with which the Creator had so plentifully endowed this favored land. It was after “the party of protection came along,” and not before, that labor and capital began to find work and wealth In our forests and mines. That Is a fact In history.—American Economist.

Reaping the Benefits. Canadian advocates of free-trade or a low tariff tell the farmers of tho Northwest that protection Is a policy Intended solely forthe benefit of th« manufacturers lu tho Eastern provinces. The low tariff advocates of the United States used to tell the same story to the Western farmer*. Thry said there were no manufacturing industries in the Weet and nfcver could ba The protectionists, on the other hand, told the Western farmers that the ultimate effect of protection would be to cause the establishment of factories in the West as well as In the East. The farmers of the Wort gave their support to the party advocating his protection and they are now reaping the benefits of the policy.—lndr.*--tri&l Canada. Export* of Boots and Shoo*. In 1896 our exports of boots and shoes were 822.412 pairs; In 1902 the exports were 3,990,786 pairs, or nearly five times as many. These figures do not show much of a burden from the tariff that exists on certain grades of hides. In fact, hides are practically free when made idto shoes for tha export trade.