The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-08-31
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.


Germany is about to suspend the import
duties on grain, in consequences of the
scarcity produced by Germany's short
crop and Russia's retirement from the Geld
of expectation. History here repeats
itself, for in 1916 the Irish famine forced
Sir Robert Peel's hand and forced him to
repeal the Corn Laws. Peel came into
Office in 1s41 on the fall of the Melbourne
ministry, pledged to uphold the principle
of protection for home grown grain. This
act, which was like that of the Republican
protection party repeating the duty on
sugar, was the greatest OF Peel's career,
but it procured him the bitterest denuncia-
ton of the ultra, fanaticaI protectionists
of his party. The corn law, repealed in
1916, was passed in 1915, and imposed
duty on the importation of foreign grain
which amounted to prohibition.
The principle of the measure was that
until the corn grower had secured hand
some profit the people had no right to any
reduction in the price of food. The leader
of the fanaticai ultra protectionists against
the so-called apostate, Peel. was Disraeli,
who sneered at the great statesman as "a
watcher of the atmosphere, who takes his
observations, and when he finds the wind
in particular quarter, trims his sails to
suit it. Such man is no more great
statesman than the man who gets
up behind a carriage is great
whip" Disraeli described Peel as "a
sublime mediocrity," and his gov
eminent as organized hypocrisy"
Disraeli fought Peel in vain. He called
him 'a trader in other peoples intelli-
gence, political burglar OF other mems
ideas, political peddler who bought his
party in his cheapest market and sold it in
his dearest. The right honorable gentleman
had caught the Wings in bathing and had
walked away with their clothes" In spite
of the blasting ridicule and dazzling wit
of Disraeli, Peel passed his bill for the
repeal of the Corn Laws, but the ultra
protectionists in their rage revenged them
selves by defeating the governments
coercion bill for Ireland, and the Peel
ministry fell in its hour of triumph amid
the cry: Protection kills You, not your
coercion bill"
Peel had repealed the Corn Laws, which
O'Connell had helped to victory, and then
O'Connell, in the same spirit of the pres
ent home rule policy turned against
Peel. O'Connel was Parnell's teacher;
he was always for Ireland. He
traded one day with the Wings and
the next day with the Tories; he was like
the sailor, who, no matter how many girls
he Airted with in foreign ports, "his heart
is still true to POLL" SO O'Connell's real
mistress was Ireland.
We have recited these historical facts
concerning the repeal Of the Corn Laws
because they strikingly illustrate the diff
ference between the English ultra protec-
tionists of 1916, who executed Sir Robert
Peel as traitor to his party, for simply
doing exactly what the Republican pro-
tectionists did when they took off the
duties on sugar. Peel declined, with a
famine in Ireland, to maintain protection
on grain, when Great Britain could not
raise her own food, for the benefit of the
individual grain grower, just as the Re-
| publican party declined to tax the whole
| people enormously for sugar when we
| could not possibly, after nearly a century's
trial, raise our own sugar or increase its
| production.
| And yet the liberal statesmanship of
Peel msde his name execrated by his old
| protection following, who took the first
| opportunity to vindctively vote him out
of office. On the other hand, McKinley's
| decision to lift the duty from sugar not
only did not excite any resistance among
Republican protectionists but was heartily
approved by the whole party outside of a
| few individual sugar growers. and McKin-
! ley by his wise reform of the tariff
strengthened himself with his party.
| while Sir Roberts action procured his
| defeat at the first opportunity. These
| facts illustrate the difference between
| American protection as policy to increase
and develop American industries to the
end of increasing and maintaining our
home market for the greatest good of the
| greatest number. and English protection.
which was maintained for the benefit of
individuals or classes, regardless of the
fact that the protected industry was one
in which it was impossible to compete
with foreign producers and thus by home
development and increase force down
prices.
The protection which Peel sithdrew
from grain was in its imposition as out
rageous as 1t would be for us to persist in
placing high duty on bananas, which
We do not produce and can not hope by
protection TO ever add to our national
fruit industries. Peel was absolutely right
in withdrawing protection from English
wheat, as Mckinley was in withdrawing
protection from American sugar, but Peel
lost his official head for doing what has
made the Republican party the exponent
OF the progressive policy of protection to
the people and the home market; not pro-
lection TO a few individual sugar growers
who have for nearly century iabored in
vain 70 raise our own sugar and have not
been able, even with protection, to increase
its production.
This policy Of Republican protection is
Swallowed forth in the Mckinley tariff.
which in the matter Of protection to our
new experiment in tin industry reads as
follows:
PrOrsdai, That unless IL shall be made IN
appear TO the satisfaction of the pres DENT of the
United states (who shall make known the fact
bY proclamation that the nr0s5uHt s,F -,