Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 36, Number 60, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 March 1904 — POLITICAL COMMENT. [ARTICLE]

POLITICAL COMMENT.

■ Protection in England. The growth of the protective tariff sentiment in Great Britain, under the vigorous campaign of Joseph Chamberlain, is a cause of infinite worry to a large number of the Free-Trade newspapers in this country. If Cobdenism loses hold in England, what refuge will its exponents In this country find? In endeavoring to break the moral effect of this abandonment of free trade in the home of its votaries, some of these Free Trade newspapers profess to believe that the hand of England is forced in the matter; that she is compelled to turn to protection not because it is sound in principle, but as a matter of retaliation against the United States. Thus a conspicuous Free Trade newspaper says that the Chamberlain campaign has apparently roused in many quarters of this country '“a vague feeling of distrust of the wisdom of our own policy, which has provoked this attempt at retaliation.” This is an exact converse of the Chamberlain position. Mr. Chamberlain has never for a single instant usedthe argument that protection should be adopted for the purpose of compelling the United States to open its markets' to English goods. On the direct contrary, he has commended the tariff policy of the United States and held it up ns a model worthy of British adoption. For the free trade between the States of the American union, witii a tariff against the outside world, he proposes a substantial equivalent of

free trade between all of the component parts of the British Empire, with tariffs against outsiders, which is as near an equivalent of the American system of protection as the different circumstances of the British Empire will adept adopting.

It is not to break into the American market, but to keep the American manufacturers from taking the British colonial markets away from the British manufacturers that Mr. Chamberlain urges the adoption of our policy. The things whlcji have provoked this attitude of Chamberlain are the supremacy of the United States in manufacturing and the wonderful expansion of German manufacturing and commerce as well. Behind the Chamberlain policy there is no resentment at the tariff laws of Germany and the United States; but a resentment at the commercial and industrial expansion of both •countries, which have rendered Great Britain’s Industrial and commercial supremacy a thing of the past. If there is any one in this country who questions the wisdom of the tariff policy of the United States, which has ( created the conditions above outlined, he certainly cannot be found in the ranks of the Protectionists. The wisdom of our policy Is most heartily indorsed by Chamberlain himself, who gives it the highest possible praise In his recommendation that it be copied by the British Empire, in order that Great Britain can save herself from being driven out of the markets which her own colonies nfford. There is no longer the remotest thought in Great Britain of being able to recapture the American markets. —Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Just Plain Free Trade. It Is not candid treatment of the subject to quote McKinley and Blaine ns In fnvor of wholesale reciprocity. They were both conspicuous advocates of protection, and only advocated reciprocity with nations offering articles we *do not produce. Reciprocity In competitive free trade. Reciprocity Implies special advantages to be mutually enjoyed. All trade between nations Is not reciprocity, and the Free traders should be restrained from masquerading under the reciprocity banners. These distinctions, should be kept In mind.— Fontanelle (la.) Observer.

Wanting in Discretion. A declaration In the Chicago platform that the Republican party, If continued in power, will keep nbreast of the times In the tariff, ns in nil other matters, would not be objectionable.

but the introduction of the tariff as a campaign issue would be pleasing only to those who find delight in fomenting trouble. Business will not thrive under tariff agitation. The industries do not prosper. New enterprises are held back, old enterprises wait for developments. The uncertainty as to what the result will be.keeps everybody on the tender hooks, and everybody suffers. A Presidential campaign under any circumstances is unsatisfactory from a business and industrial standpoint, and to introduce the tariff issue will be to make it worse. Governor Cummins may be given credit for sincerity, but his discretion is notably wanting.—Grand Itapids Herald. ' A Two-Edged Sword. Reciprocity in competitive products with Canada and the rest of the world would cut like a two-edged sword. It would begin by increasing our surplus of agricultural commodities through the free admission of Canada’s natural products, and in. order to work off this increased surplus It would end by lowering our tariff so as to admit a larger volume of foreign manufactures. The compensating gain, if any, is problematical and speculative. The injury is clear and unquestionable. To increase our agricultural surplus means a loss to the farmer. To provide new outlets for that surplus by diminished tariff protection on manufactures means a loss to our industrial interests and to labor. The more the question

is studied the more certain it becomes that reciprocity in competitive products would prove a false and pernicious policy for a country blessed with the resources and capabilities of the United States.