Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-10-28

the criticisms that have been passed
regarding his first statement with ref
erence to the matter in hand. From
this it would appear that Senator
Hansbrough's first article did not
convey his ideas either clearly or fully.
If the senator means to convey that
some of the reciprocity treaties now
UP for consideration are unfair, or
would not be beneficial to the people
of the country, there is a different as
pect of the case to be considered. It
is for the intelligence and wisdom of
the nations representatives to say
what treaties and covering what pro-
ducts and articles would be of the
greatest good to the nation. But we
apprehend that the greatest share of
opposition to the senator's first state
ment rose from the suggestion that
it was the free traders of the country
who had raised the reciprocity cry
and that reciprocity, as a means of
reducing or reforming the present tar
ifs was not a wise means at this
time. In this connection the Tribune
referred and does refer to the speeches
of President Mckinley at Buffalo and
President Roosevelt at the state fair
in Minnesota to show that it is not
the free traders who favor reciprocity.
It is not to be inferred because some
of the leaders of the republican party
favor reciprocal treaties that the
party will throw down the oars of pro-
lection completely and enact a free
trade measure. Not ait all. There
has been no suggestion of this in any
of the speeches advocating reciproc-
ity. Nor is it to be supposed that
congress will blindly adopt whatever
reciprocity treaties may be proposed
without a careful examination into
their probable effect upon our COM
merce and industry. But the Tri-
bune does believe that where tar
ifs are 10 longer needed for the pro-
lection and upbuilding of home indus
tries, they may and should be modi-
fed with the object of increasing our
markets abroad. The Tribune be-
lieves Senator Hansbrough will be
found in line with this policy when
the question is UP for legislation by
congress.
Senator Hansbrough thinks the Tri-
bune, st. Paul Dispatch and other re-
publican papers. have done him an in
Justice in arguing that he was not for
reciprocity and he republishes the fol
lowing statement from his first ed
torial on the subject to show that he
was in line with President McKinley's
views: eve will enter into recip-
rocal trade relations with foreign ma
lions when by so doing we may derive
mutual benefits without destroying
any domestic industry" The ques-
tion with Senator Hansbrough seems
to be how tariff reduction shall be &C
complished. In this behalf he says
the pending treaties are as bad as the
Wilson-Gorman bill. Granted that
! this is so, it has nothing to do with
the general proposition of reciprocity.
There will be no one to argue that the
reciprocity should be all on n side.
Nor will there be any argument that
we shall destroy or do harm to do
mestic Industries in the adoption of
these treaties. The question of the
practicability or wisdom of pending
treaties is a secondary one, to be dis
cussed and disposed of after the adj
mission of the wisdom of the general
policy of reciprocity. In readjusting
our tariff schedules. Reciprocity is
not the only thing to be considered in
the reimbursement It is one of a
number of things. But it is an i'm
portant one and the Tribune believes
a wise one of the several policies that
will actuate and control the congress
of the United States in fixing tariff
schedules.