The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1901-08-29
Anrmnossible Doctrine.


Gently been demanding the defeat OF
Speaker Henderson for reelection for
the reason that he has refused to agree
not to reappoint Congressman Babcock
Of Wisconsin on the Ways and Means
Committee. contains the following from
George l.. Reis. superintendent Of the
Illinois Steel Company:
Il believe in tariff whether we need
il or not. Even if il does no good, what
harm does it do: No profit has been
made on the iron and steel goods that
ave been sold abroad. They have been
sold at cost to get rid of a surplus and
to win foothOld in the foreign mar
ket. England had the trade all to her
self and she charged higher profits than
we did here. Now she has been obliged
to sell below cost to keep her market.
She cannot stand the pace. When Gus
toners abroad learn to like our goods.
they will buy them ut fair prices. and
we can sell at profit. We can make
iron and steel products cheaper than
they can. But | believe in a tariff just
the same. Ii insures us 4 home mar
ket under all conditions. Ii the manu-
facturers cannot sell their goods, the
wages and cheaper goods. No one is
disappointed but the politicians. and
they want votes"
Mr.. Refs says that American steel
makers can manufacture steel goods
cheaper than the foreigners. He also
admits the American-made steel has
been sold abroad cheaper than at
home. Yet he favors the continuance
of the prohibitory tariff on steel. Why
does he favor it: Because it ENSURES
us a home market in all conditions"
And of what good is this to the steel
manufacturer! He is able to charge
more at home than abroad because the
tariff prevents the corrective of impOr-
tation-the manufacturer is able to col
,ect from American consumers the 80 to
so per cent of the steel tariff plus the
cost of his goods and fair profit.
One almost loses patience when it
organization as the United States Steel
corporation, with its billion dollars of
inflated capital, OIL which dividends are
regularly paid, has a right to penaliZe
the people of this country because they
live on this side of the water rather
than the other. 1t would seem as IL,
granting as Mr.. Refs says, that the
American steelmaker can manufacture
more cheaply than his foreign cOmpeti-
tor, that our people. living closer to the
cheapest source of production, should
get steel goods cheaper than those who
live 5000 miles away. What would
be thought If an organization of farm
,rs. favored by law in some way, should
arise. and it should become the accept
cd thing to charge the people in the
growing state 81 per bushel for corn,
while the same Identical corn was sold
in London for 80 cents? Would it not
be denounced as an u1speakable out
rage. and would not there be an imme-
diate demand for the repeal of the leg
islatiOn which permitted and fOstered
such n condition?
Clay, Morrill,. Blaine. even Mckinley,
never justified the continuance of 4
protective tariff when it should appear
that an industry in America was able
to produce more cheaply than any for
eign rival. At first it was said pro-
lection was merely to promote infant
industries-tO give them n chance to
get started; then it was said that only
such amount of duty was justifable as
would equalize the difference between
the American and foreign wages
the American manufacturer not being
able to produce as cheaply as the for
eigner unless he paid lower wages;
now We have admission that the in
dustries are not infant and that the
cost of production is less in America,
and yet there Is a defiant demand to
continue prohibitOry tariff on the
express ground that the American con-
sumer shall be fleeced. 1t is not con-
tended that the additional price charged
in America goes to the wOrkingmen
in the form of higher wages. 1t is ad-
mitted that 1t goes to the manufac-
turer or else to the foreigner who is
able to buy things below cost We
used to be told that the foreigner paid
the tariff tax; Mr.. Refs practically ad
mits that, as to steel. the extra price
collected in this country is given to the
foreign buyer. We pay the tariff for
him. 1t Is not conceivable that this
latest expression Of protection rapacity
will find favor with the American peo-
ple-even with the strictest of the old
school protectionists. who talked Amer
lea for the Americans.
Hanna and Morgan.
Senator Hanna says he is not trying
to settle the steel strike. 1t is the Sena-
tors duty to try. all the same. Much Is
expected of him. and as a matter of
good faith he should put his shoulder
to the wheel What if Mr.. ]. Pierpont
Morgan does tell him to keep out-tbat
his interference is not required? Can
Mr. Hanna afford to be obedient to Mr..
Morgan merely because he is billion
aire. or something Of that sort? Can
the leading candidate for the Republi-
can nomination for President of the
United States-the man who has only
to say the word and all other candi-
dates will subside-afford to lay
down" to a man who has nothing but
money!"
Mr.. Morgan probably doesn't care if
there is a general strike. 1t will not
interfere with his personal comfort for
q minute He is not politician in the
sense Of being candidate for office.
He merely wants the power of wealth.
To be the richest man in the United
States. controlling products and trans
portation and handling many millions
of money and directing the material
destinies of millions of men, would no
doubt be a prouder position to him than
that of Chief Executive Of the greatest
republic of all time. II this were mon
archy it might be different. but it is
even possible that Mr. Morgan would
rather be financial and railroad mag