The Tucson citizen., 1901-12-20
THE PHILIPPINE TARIFF.

On Wednesday the House Of
Representatives acting through its
Republican majority passed the
Payne bill to levy a tax on our com
merce with the Philippine Islands. The
Payne bill, which Is now before the
Senate for action, Is brief and to the
point, its main provision being the
extension OF the Dingley act to i'm
ports from the Archipelago. while the
tariff law enacted by the Philippine
commission is applied to goods I'M
ported into the Philippines. There Is
no reason to doubt that the Senate
will pass the Payne bill and when this
is done the inhabitants of our domestic
territory will be as completely out
side our tariff wall as our free trade
rivals in Europe.
While the Government of the United
States is demanding the open door"
in China. and President Roosevelt as
sured the country in his message to
congress that the administration
would insist upon liberal treatment
of Americans engaged in the Chinese
trade, the United States presents the
anomalous spectacle of country
which refuses to open its own door
to the most important of its domestic
terrltories Not only Is this the case,
but in addition. we propose to dis
criminate against one domestic ter
rtory in favor of another To pro-
tect our infant Industries from the
cheap labor of the Philippines we will
collect the rates OF the Dingley tariff
act on all products of the Archipelago
brought to the United States. where
as Porto Rico now enjoys free trade
with this country, and it is proposed
to give Cuba, which is foreign terri
tory" the benefit OF substantial re-
ductlOn In duties.
1t is not denied that free trade with
Porto Rico is a just and sensible
policy. 1t Is equally true that
the commercial relations OF the
United States and Cuba will be vast
ly improved by liberal tariff arrange
ment. But II free trade with Porto Rico
is advantageous to the United States
and the Porto Ricans why would it
not be equally beneficial to the Philip
pines? Why should a privilege be
given one domestic territory which is
denied another. and ought not all of
our dependencies to be on the same,
footing as regards protection and free
trade? Ought not our taxing system
to be uniform? Why make fish of
one and flesh of another?
American clamor for the open
door" In China seems to be wholly in
consistent with out tariff policy In ...e
Philippines. We insist that Chinese
shall give Americans the benefit of
more liberal treatment than the Unit
ed States is willing to extend to the
inhabitants of It's own insular possess
sions. The Chinese are not supposed
to posses a keen sen.e of humor
but the auaacity of the American posi-
tion and the curious contradictions
which 1t involves are calculated to
makes the Chinese minister at Wash
ington smile from ear to ear.
European countries which have
Colonial possessions will also be dis
posed to resent the high duties which
are to be collected by our customs
officials on imports into the Philip
pines II the United States Govern
ment builds a tariff wall around the
linppine archipelago, why shou,4
Europe not adopt the same policy in
regard to its colonies in asia and
Africa? Americans now have practi-
cally the right of way in the British
possessions. As we will not give Great
Britain the benefit OF the open door in
the Philippines why should the Brit
ish grant the United States equal
privileges in the British colonies? IT
looks very much as il our tariff policy
in the Philippines will prove embarr-
assing not only in our own trade rela-
tions with the archipelago but also
with nations which, like the United
States, have colonial possessions.