Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 35, Number 90, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 July 1903 — POLITICAL COMMENT. [ARTICLE]

POLITICAL COMMENT.

Hands Off the Tariff. The Republican convention of Ohio followed the lead of Senator Hanna in declaring for a policy of “hands off” the tariff. There is sound wisdom in this, however much it may discomfort the swarm of inveterate tariff tinkers, always seeking to reopen this question. ’ V\~

The sense of the country has been tested on the question of protection against free trade several times, and there Is no question that the Republican policy has the indorsement of the American people. Even those who are at the bottom of their hearts believers In absolute free trade recognize that the country wants none of it; therefore they call themselves tariff reformers now. No matter what the tariff may be, in their opinion it always needs “reforming,” and always will need reforming so long as there is protection in it. .

In all of ( Jhe talk of the necessity for tariff reform, there is yet lacking a specific and distinct utterance as to the particulars in which it needs to be reformed. The present law is admitted, even by the tariff reformers, to be a good working instrument. They claim in general terms that it has defects; but when it conies from generalities to particulars, there is no agreement among them.

The prosperity of the country is based upon the protective tariff. Every suggestion for tariff reform is a suggestion for the withdrawal of protection in some degree from some industry. Every reopening or threatened reopening of the tariff question is a disturbance to business. There is no particular and specific change or reform in the present law for whieli any large number of people are clamoring. There is no industry or interest which can point to any considerable injury Resulting to it from any particular clause, paragraph or schedule of the present law. What clear and understandable reasons do the tariff reformers give why the business of the country should bo disturbed by the reopening of this question? Certainly none has yet seen the light. There has been much phrase-mongering about the “tariff sheltering monopolies” and the like, but this is all. \

The Ohio idea of “hands off,” otherwise given as “stand pat,” is as good a policy for the country to follow in connection with the tariff as can readily be conceived. It is the policy wlik-li has the warm approval of the business interests of the country; and by the business Interests is meant every one whose income is drawn directly or Indirectly from the production, manufacture or sale of American products, whether of the factory or the farm. We know times are good now. We know that to “monkey’ with the tariff Is the readiest, simplest, and most certain method of disturbing business, limiting production and postponing contemplated improvements. There is no particular advantage to be obtained by reopening the tariff question, to compensate for these certaiu disadvantages.

The law certainly does utot need to be changed on accoifnt of any necessity of tbo government itself; for the present law is nicely adjusted to meet the government’s needs. The demand for change is put forward purely from political sources and for the sole purpose of raisiug a political issue. Republicans are urged to raise the cry merely to forestall the action of the Democrats, who arc certain to raise it. Let them do so. Republicans may well be content to be judged by the results accomplished under the tariff law for which they arc responsible, rather than to join with tlielr enemies In discrediting tlielr own good work.—Seattle PostIntelligeneer. Populists as Republicans. Considerable comment has been caused in the West by the assertion of a leading Populist of Kansas that he believes the most of the old-time members of that party will support Roosevelt and the Republicans, in next year’s national campaign, irrespective of the Democratic nominee, whoever he may be. The Kansas City Journal expresses the snme idea, and gives as the reason that Populism In the West “was an organized protest against policies which were believed to have brought hard times upon the country. It was a desperate resort of agriculturists who were willing to try anything that afforded a hope of relief. The restoration of prosperity through the very agencies that the Populists had thought to be so destructive convinced them of their error, and now they desire the party under whose nd ministration tliey are growing rich to continue In power.”

Tills expresses the facts as we see them; and we may add also that the majority of the Populist party iu the West, where that strange political movement originated, was drawn originally from the Republican ranks. They fell Into error as to some of the causes of the hard times from which they suffered and into the further error of Indorsing erroneous policies as the remedy. Free silver, one of these. Is now dead beyond the hope of resurrection. Moreover, they see that the Republican administration hgs checked the formation of trusts and combine*, and put existing ones in fear. The Democrats talked violently

against trusts, and accused the Repjußlfcans of favoring them; yet when the Democratic party came into full power in the nation in 1893, it ditl nothing whatever. So why should any Populist go to the Democratic party? Again, on the tariff the Populists are with the Republican party. The prosperity which followed the enactment of the Dlngley law In 1897 showed them Its value as giving the basis for great national prosperity. They are with the Republicans In opposition to the evils of trusts; so are they regarding national expansion. The Republican vote of the West for Roosevelt in 1904 will be phenomenal. —Toledo Blade.

A Lancaome Outcry. The Millers' National Federation, in convention at Detroit, adopted a resolution demanding the speedy adoption by the national government of a broad, liberal and comprehensive policy of genuine reciprocity. It was supposed at the time of the passage of the present tariff law that such a policy had been adopted, but the execution thereof has been nullified by the Senate. There were at one time symptoms of a popular revolt, but active interest In the matter has subsided so that the declaration from the Millers’ National Federation seems out of date. We notice that in a recent work on wheat production byJWilliam C. Edgar, edit r of a Northwest organ of the flour milling interest, the statement is made that great change of tariff sentiment is going on among the of the Northwest, and they are rapidly turning against the high protective policy. If this be so they are keeping it very, much to themselves, and, in fact, Mr. Edgar admits that it is “unknown to the politicians.” It can hardly be expected to exert any Influence upon politics until it is strong enough to make itself known to the politicians. Mr. Edgar explains that if the wheat duty were abolished the new Canadian wheat fields would be a source of supply to American flour mills. This certainly accounts for the attitude of the millers, but outslUfe of the milling interest there are no perceptible signs of any change of tariff sentiment, except in growth of the conviction that it is wise to let well enough alone, and this conviction is accompanied by a decrease of interest in the tariff as a political issue. A marked feature of the situation is the inclination of the people to select some other subject ns an occasion for their political differences. Efforts to start ,up tariff discussion have fallen flat. - Pittsburg Gazette.

How Canada Suffers. A free trade journal attributes the prosperity of this country chiefly to the freedom of trade between all of Its parts, but It does not explain why that prosperity was not maintained under the last Democratic administration with its Wilson tariff bill. The object of tjhat statement was to encourage free trade with Canada, as the journal goes on to say; “The same effect would be produced on a still larger scale.if there were no commercial barrier on our northern frontier; 'Sf it could be obliterated altogether the result would be increased prosperity for both.” If the word “both” were stricken out and “Canada” inserted the statement would be correct. It would bp of enormous advantage to Canada if her G,<XH),<K)O inhabitants could have free access to the markets of the 80,000,000 inhabitants of the United States without contributing one cent toward the support of the government of this country. Freedom of trade between the people of one country cannot be compared with freedom of trade between the people of different countries. If Canada bA-ame a part of the Union, subject to its laws, the same as all other parts of the Union, it would enjoy that freedom of trade which would double its population in ten years, whereas there has hardly been any increase in its population in the last ten years, as shown by its eehsus. Canada will not give products from the United States nny preference over similar products from Great Britain, ami as long as she holds to that position a reciprocity treaty is out of the question.— l’hiliulejpjfia Press. Railroad Employes «pd Waves. The report of the|lnterstate Commerce CotmAlsßlon ! Tor the flscnl year ending June 30, 1902, Is at hand, anil contains some very significant figures. It will l>e remembered that the railroad business of the country was seriously affected In 1895, 1898 and 1897 as a result of free trnde legislation. Iu 1898 It began to show Improvement under the Dlngley law ami hns broken records every year since. The number of employes Iu 1902 wns 1.180,315, as against 785,084 In 1895. • The wages paid last year were 8878,028,392, ns compared with 8445,508,201 in 1895. The freight carried In 1895 was less than 700,000,000 tons, while now the amount is near 1.200,000.000 tons annually. We are now building about 5,000 miles of new roads yearly, while In 1895 we averaged only about 1,700 miles. Thus Inbor reaps the benefit nt every turn in road building and car and locomotive building. aQd in every part of the passenger and.freight service «*