Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-11-14


England Free Trade League in Boston,
fAst Saturday night, was Gen. James
II. Wilson Of this city. He discussed
che tariff needs of the country, saying
in part:
Mr.. Chairman and Gentlemen OF the
free Trade League: Your COMMITTEES
has chosen great subject for oonsdera.
xion tonight. and In addressing you
apon 1T / feel that | can hardly do
more than clear the ground for your
ewn further investigation. shall not
burden you with details or figures, but
leave them for others to gather and lay
before you.
A word of personal explanation will I
trust be pardoned by tho members of
the New England Free Trade League.
AS many OF you perhaps know, am a
'Republioan and a protectiouist, as those
words are generally used, but an, an
iAmerican before | am Republican,
and | am free trader before | am a
protectionist, ana hence I venture to
call myself a " fres trade -protectionists''
"a free trader inside, proteotionist
outside, of our sphere Of interest or in
flueDcs
| am sure that we are all-free traders
and proteotionists alike--heartily in
favor Of Interstate free trade. l know
OF no one who is not There seems
to be no reasonable ground for disput-
ing the proposition that it is by odds
the greatest factor in oar national pros
perity; and this brings me to the ques-
tion, IL it has been SO beneficial within
the limits OF our own restricted field,
can we not find some just and proper
principle upon which to extend it as a
matter Of national policy? We have free
trade between States, because our Con-
stitution of government, framed by our
fathers, wisely prohi ibits us from putting
tax or duty on exports from the States
or from the Uuited States, and the su-
preme law Of the land, when considered
in its essence, is q great and permanent
treaty between the States themselves.
Does 1t not point unerringly when
looked at in this way to method Of
limited treaties by which we oan estab-
liHh the same kind of trade with the
neighboring countries?
One Of your distinguished citizens,
the Hon. Richard Olney, has demon
strated In q most notable comm unica-
tion from the Department of State to
the late Thomas II. Bayard, Ambassador
to Great Britain, in connection with the
Venezuela boundary question. that
the Monroe Doctrine is the public law
of the Western Hemisphere. II there
was any doubt to that question, il has
been removed by the Spanish war and
the consequences flowing from it. We
have given practical effect to it in other
cases. ] refer, OF course, tc those OF
Mexico and Cuba, and without pausing
TO dilate upo them, lhmerely wish now
to point out that our vindication OF
that doctrine has been limited with d
single exception to the North American
- r.. ...t... IL. =. A d.
il. While it is active with respect tc
them, it may be said to be latent with
respecu to the countries of South
America. Let us hope that an occasion
for its more emphatic assertion in be
half OF those countries may be long de
layed.
MONROE DOCTRINE susrECTEp.
In this connection it may not b,
Inappropriate for rue to call your atten
tion to tho fact that our friends o
Latin America generally look upon III
with moro or less suspicion. Will
Mexico, Venezuela and Cuha have re
ceired substantial evidence of our goo,
will and friendship, they have also hal
some reason to suspect our entire dis
jsserestednvss. While they recogni2
ohe Dootrina de Monroe" as a docttin
of benevolenoe, they have some fea
that IL may ultimately became doc
trine of benevolent assimilation.
Deny and disguise il as we will, it il a
open secret that while the Latin Ameri
can republics regard it as doctrine O
protection against outsiders, they fea
that it may yet become doctrine q
conquest for insiders. The evidenc
that this fear is genuine is not far t
seek, and while it is not eermane
my present purpose 10 consider whethe
it .s we'll or ill founded, | cannot re
Train from pointing out that it exist
aud that 1T is the part of coed states
nnanship to remove it, if it can he done
That an effective, honorable, an
profitable way can be found to this en-
for them and us alike, L do not doubi
at all events, those who have the sui
ject in mind may we'll consider the sue
gestion which / venture to make cha
the time has come when We shoul
seek for hasis of commercial relation
ship with our neigbbors broader ali
more philosophical than that of mer
reciprocity, which, as at present undel
stood, i8 at best a matter of barter i
commodities.
lnasmuoh as under the Monrc
Doctrine, which one of our most di
tinguished statesmen has declared |
be as much if not more commerciI
than " is political, we have assume
the burden of protecting the neighbo
ing States from foreign aggression, tt
question naturally arises why shouI
We not try to get SONS commercial at
vantage from them which, while it ms
make them richer and stronger, wou
10 measure compensate us for o,
trouble and expense?
FREE TRADE WITH NEI HBoRs.
Under this aspect of our relatio,
With them, why should the Unitt
States not say frankly to all the Stat
of North America, at least we wi
agree to absolute and reciprocal m
trade in natural and manufactur,
products, between our country and a
its dependencies wherever situated, Z
the one hand, and all the immediate
neighboring countries on the othe
under a uniform tariff to be ayrei
upon by the parties to the arranR
ment, and to be carried into effect
against all other countries? | do n
say that the time has come when su,
an arrangement as this can he oarri,
into effect. 1t would doubtless be r
isoted at tirst by one or more OF ii