St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-12-04
THE -FOUR DoCroks-

THE FOUR DOCTORS.
We gave yesterday the opinions of
four eminent tariff practitioners called
In TO make post mortem ON the fall
elections and ascertain why it was that
Republican states went Republican. As
they all belong 50 the same school of
municipalities, it is not surprising that
there Is substantial agreement as to
the causes; and, as doctors of another
school have been called in to prescribe
treatment for the common patient, dis
placing these gentlemen, it is also not
surprising that they should all agree
that 1t is the new course of treatment
that, combined with some other minor
matters. chiefly of diet and environ
menr, enabled the Dutch to take Hol-
land. DrS. Reed and Sherman are some
what more discursiYe than are Drs.
Mckinley and Alger, the latter feeling,
probably, somewhat diffident in the
presenc of DR.. Sherman, and thinking
all the while of the manner in which
that venerable practitioner bastinadoed
him for his connection with the Dia-
mond match trust.
DR.. Reed assumes philosophical air
III his opinion, under which he will
hardly be recognized, for the country
knows Reed best as satirist whose lip
has constant tendency to sneer, and
whose tongue drips sarcasm habitually.
de curbs his innate disposition until the
last paragraph, when his irony breaks
forth, and, the more virulent for the i'm
posed restraint, like Raudolph's descrip-
ton OF Clay's corruption. it 'shines aud
stinks and Stinks and shines like a rot
ten mackerel i'll the moonlight" Here,
too. there is disagreement between
DR.. Reed and Dr.. McKinIey-more az
parent than real, howeyer-in their esti-
mate of the bill which formulates the
policy which they all agree is the primal
cause OF the results of the election. DR..
Reed discovers great chunks of protecl
ton in Mr.. Wilson's bill, while DR.. Nc
Kinley pronounces it ''by far the most
radical and far-reaching in the direction
of free trade of all the tariff bills pre-
pared by Democrats during the last dec
ade."
One would be unreasonable to expect
three presidential possibilities and one
who had survived that stage to discuss
the late elections from a historical
standpoint or to be other than partial to
their own futures in their views. We
can imagine why Mckinley, who lied
the most magnificent political organiza-s
ton that ever existed to the most over
whelming defeat political party ever
experienced, as ingalls, said. in two ma
tlOnal elections, regards the local cleo
lions of this fall as an approval of his
policy; and we cannot blame Reed or
Alger, who are looking an Xiously to '96.
for seeing in them reversal of the
two popular verdicts. for they afford
them the only ray of hope in universal
gloom. In standing up so stoutly for
their favorite policy we appreciate the
comment of the Texas editor who, when
Phil Sheridan said that if he owned
Texas and hell he would sell Texas and
live in hell, retorted: ''Well, d-n a
man, anyway, who won't stand up for
his own country"
There are, however, some statements
made in the course of these diagnoses
that are worth noting. 1t is the con-
slant assertion of free trade rs that tar
ifs do not and cannot affect wages eX-
cept injuriously, and that the pretense
that they raise or sustain them is mere
pretense. They assert that employ
erS are but human, and eau not be
trusted to voluntarily share the benefits
of tariff profits with their workingmen;
will lob or
by the supply of labor and the demand
for it. if possible. Mr.. Reed admits this
in saying lit so happened that, what
ever may have been the original need
of manufacturers as to duties when they
were laid. organized labor, Instructed
by Self-intereSt. was everywhere de-
handing its full share of the profits and
was getting it in most cases." And Mr..
Sherman says ''the tariff of 1890, though
strongly protective, did not materially
advance the rate of wages of working
men. 1t enormously developed old and
new industries, but it did not materially
increase wages. Workingmen were
discontinued with the division of profits
between the employer and employed.
They perceived that the employers were
growing richer, while their wages were
not increased"
Thus we have the corroborativs adj
mission Of Mr.. Reed that the profits of
protection were absorbed by the manu-.
facturers, except where labor was in
condition to organize and demand and
get its share of the loot Of the people ::
and we have Mr.. Sherman's admission
that while the Mckinley bill offered to
capital such inducement of profit as to
enormously develop old and new in
dustries,' the workingmen got nothing
of the profits exacted from the people
ostensibly for the sole benefit of the
laborer. To be sure, we had similar
admission from John Jarvis before the
tariff commission of 's3 and in '91 Nc
Kinley admitted, when driven by Camp
bell into corner, that tariffs could not
raise wages, but cumulative testimony
is always welcome. especially when it
comes from such authoritative sources.
On the whole, we are inclined to regard
heispace accorded to these four doctors
as worth its cost.
DEMOCRATIC DRY ROT,
We confess to feeling of chagrin in
reading the interviews with some Du-