The Saint Paul globe., 1900-03-08
AND NOW CONGRESSMAN TAwNEY
EXPIATNS

congressman James A. TaWney, of the
First district. now rises to explain to
the people Of Minnesota why he voted
for the bill to impose a Is per cent
tariff on Puerto Rico. Like Congress-
man Eddy, Mr.. Tawney charges the Sec
retary of war with being the author of
the bill, and he also alleges that the
sugar and tobacco trusts were opposed to
the measure and In favor of free trade
between the island and the United
States. Mr. Tawney also says that he
is himself heartily in favor Of a policy
of free trade, but he AYERS that In the
opinion of disinterested persons Of Puerto
Rico now in Washington the bill as
passed by the house of representatives
is far more beneficial to them than free
trade would be at this time
Mr.. Tawney's statement that the trusts
favor free trade with Puerto Rico will
surprise the people Of Minnesota who
have heretofore supposed that a trust
fears free trade as much as the devil IS
said to fear holy water and for similar
reasons. Mr.. Tawney will, perhaps, VEN
ture the statement that the sugar to-
bacco and cordage trusts favor free
trade with the Philippine islands; for 1t
is plain to any person that the tariff
policy which will be applied to Puerto
Rico would in all probability be applied
to the Philippines. TO favor free trade
for one island and not for the others
would be illogical in the extreme. and to
adopt distinct policies for each of our
new possessions would land the adminis-
tration In the midst of worse complica-
tions than 1T even now enjoys.
No, Mr.. Tawney, you cannot persuade
the people of Minnesota. or Of any other
state, that the trusts favor free trade
If it is true. as Mr.. Tawney states,
that the tobacco and sugar trusts con-
troll all the products on the island of
Puerto Rico, and If 1t is true that the
administration. Of which Mr. Tawney
seems to think he Is q not inconsidera-
BILE fgment, is not desirous of benefiting
these trusts and defeated the attempt OF
through the house of representatives,
why did not the administration and Mr.
Tawney rise in their might and impose
the full duty upon Puerto Rican exports?
Why did they relieve the trusts of IS
per cent of the duty and thus play into
the hands OF the Shameless lobby" Mr..
Tawney refers to in his explanation? If
Puerto Rico needs revenue and must
have 1t, why only impose Is per cent
duty when 1t would have been just as
easy to impose the full amount and so
have rebuked the trusts and greatly in
creased this much needed revenue for
the poor Puerto Rlcans?
The temporary necessities of the people
Of Puerto Rico would have been relieved
and bridged over much quicker and ef
fectively by levytng the full tariff under
the Dingley bill
If the necessities of the Puerto Rtcans
are so pressing that immediate raliaf must
be afforded them. the imposition of a
IL per cent tariff, is not the way 10 do It.
No good reason has yet been advanced
why-congress should not make a direct
appropriation for the benefit of Puerto
Rico. The taxpayers Of the United States
have borne without murmuring the ap-
preparation of $4,000 900 for the Philip
pine islands. and the military expenses
of subjecting the people of those islands.
No protest has been made against the ap-
preparation of SS, 100000 for the Cuban sol
diers and the maintenance of the military
government of that island, and it is high
ly probable that no serious objection
would be raised by the taxpayers to the
direct appropriation of $2,OOO.O0O OF $4,000, GOD
to aid the suffering Puerto Ricans.
AS matter of fact, Mr.. Tawney's ex-
planation does not satisfactorily explain
why he voted to impose tariff en- Puerto
Rico. He makes number of broad state
ments regarding the opposition to that
measure, and he fails to substantiate
them in any particular. The reason he ad-
vances for the imposition of the Is per
cent tariff is simply childish, if the con-
Gition Of the people OF that Island is so
impoverished and their necessities %