The Globe-republican., 1901-04-04
TARIFF IMBROGLIO
SOME EFFECTS OF RUSSIA.S
RETALIATORY POLICY.
Secretary Cages Action Regarding
CountervaiiIns Duties Seems to Have
Emboldened Free-Traders and Fright
ened Some TImId ProtectIonists.

ened some TInafd ProtectIonists.
In the vast quantity of comment
called forth by the decision of Secre-
tary Gage regarding the enforcement
of the Dingley law relating to counter
vailing duties and the reta1iatory ac-
ton of the Russian government in con-
nection with that decision, it is graf
flying to encounter the cool common
sense. the level-headed logic, with
which this question Is treated editor
tally by the Cincinnati Times-Star-'
This is all the more refreshing in
view of the contrast which it presents
to the attitude of a considerable por-
ton of the newspaper press OF the
United States the same subject
With one accord and actuated by the
common impulse of discrediting the
protection policy, the free-trade demo-
cratic journals have sprung to the
front with imperative demands for the
repeal of the Dingley tariff Nothing
short of wiping this law from the fed
era1 statute books will satisfy them.
To these superior minds it does not
matter that the decision of Secretary
Gage was rendered in obedience to a
mandatory provision which left him
discretion or option; it is of no
consequence that the decision serves
and was intended the shortest posi-
bic route to a judicial determination
of the question whether Russia has
been evading the sugar bounty pro-
vision of laws by roundabout
methods; not of the least Importance
is, in their judgment, the plain fact
that the neglect of our government to
enforce countervailing duties on Rus
sian bounty-fed sugars would have
been construed and resented by other
bounty paying countries as dlscrim ina
ton against them and undue favorit
ism toward Russia.
None of these considerations affect
the free-trade democratic newspa pers-
They dencunce the secretary's decision
as provocatory of continental COM
bine for the purpose of shutting out all
imports of American products, and
they demand the repeal of the Ding
ley law and the abandonment of the
American system of protection as the
only way out of the difficulty. Here
and there a weak kneed. half hearted
protectionist newspaper expresses a
similar alarm and in effect cOunse1S a
similar surrender. To the latter class
of shiverers. well as to the consid-
cradle element OF domestic producers
to whom the programme of European
| retaliation presents itself as SOmething
so terrible in its consequences as to
justify any and all sorts of concessions
| for the sake of effecting a compromise
| to all such comes with peculiar per-
tinency this pointed Interrogation of
the ''Times-Star'
DO the manufacturers who are pro-
| testing against the present Russian
tariff imbroglio ever stop to consider
| this proposition: If the American
| tariff is to be altered every time some
| European nation finds its provisions
| Objectionable. what will ultimately be-
| come of the protective policy?'
| "Oho,'' says the free-trade democrat
| ic propaganda, ''lt is easy enough to
| answer that question:" So it is. from
| that point of view. The answer is as
| easy and simple as was that of the
eminent Tammany Office holder when
| he disposed OF a great issue with the
| famous exclamation: ITO hell with re-
| form!!'' Substitute protection for re-
form, and you have in a very brief
| phrase the free-trade democatic so1u-
ton of the Russian tariff imbrog1io
But is that the answer to be given by
| our Industrial captains and by the
| doubling Thomases of the ha1f-breet
protectionist press? Says the Times
STAR:
They must not forget that there
is in existence in this country a party
| which is wrapped up in the free trade
| idea, and which in every speck The
horizon sees a tariff which will
| justify them in shouting their dfsas
| trous doctrine They must not forge
, that this party is desperate for a new
| issue to present to the people, and tina
| If it could take up the tariff issue ii
| new form would willingly do so,thougl
their underlying hatred to the protec
| tive principle would be but lily con
cea1ed.
1T is probably true that the pres
ent situation is disastrous to some in
, | dividua1 enterprises; but not in the de
| gree which it was at first sought tt
impress upon the public. Don't lie
f European nations get the idea tha
when Russia, to whom we sell les
than one-half of one per cent of gu
total exports, threatens to cut off tina
infinitesima1 trade, we are prepared Il
5 bow down and alter our tariff laws
or other governments of more -momen
: to us as customers may decide that i
is possible for them to secure lil1
| changes.
IL Don't forget all commercial Eu
. rope is alarmed Al the aggressive com
| mercial and industrial growth o
America, and that the leading econo
mists of the continent are urging jus