Hot Springs weekly star. (Hot Springs, S.D.) 1892-1917, 1901-11-01
DELIBERATE ACTION.

PRESIDENT NOT DISPOSED TO
RUSH RECIPROCITY
Practical Details and Results to BE
Carefully Considered Eefore Any OF
the kasson. Treaties Are Resubmitted
TO the Senate for Ratification.
Free Trade and other newspapers
which SO glibly mlsinterpret the late
Presidents attitude with regard to
foreign trade extension and who so
confidently count upon President
Roosevelt to make good their minister
probation, would do well to pattern
after the intelligent reasonableness of
the following statement by the Wash
ington correspondent of the New York
Times:
'"There will be no precipitate action
by the President on the subject OF re-
ciprocity. The agitation Oh this sub
ject in some of the newspapers. with
assertions bolstered up by quotations
from Mr.. Roosevelt's public assurances,
whether intended to help the cause of
reciprocity or to prejudice 1t, han no
warrant further than that intended i'll
the promise of the President to adhere
to the policies of Mckinley. The sub
ject is a large and complicated one, and
not even Mr.. Mckinley, after years Of
experience, was prepared to say just
what the details of Il reciprocity treaty
with Il foreign country should be. A
reciprocity policy cannot be defined In
eny but the most general terms by the
Executive and With the legislative
branch must rest the task of providing
the Details"
1t is well and truly said that the sub
feet of reciprocity is ga large and COM
plicated one'-so large and so compli-
Gated that not even President McIlin-
ley, with his wealth of practical knowl-
edge in tariff matters, could or did
claim to have mastered it. Unlike that
rather numerous brood Of quick think
ers who imagine they have solved the
intricate problem after having given it
& cursory glance, and who don't trou-
bic themselves about the working de-
| tails. MI. Mckinley considered it tn
be his duty to go into the reciprocity
| question deeply and thoroughly. He
had previously turned the matter veF
to hands and heads which he supposed
| We're competent. only to find W that
they were bunglcrs and botclers. So,
Ill the last few months of his life he
had devoted himself studiously to the
examination OF reciprocity, alike o.
general principles and in detailed work.
ings. The result Of his painstaking in
yestigation was the Buffalo speech, in
| which he declared for the enlargement
of u foreign trade through n scheme
Of reciprocal concessions such as should
not curtail domestic production. In his
Judgment, reciprocity that should in
creas the imports of articles (which
we ourselves produce was not reel
procity at all; it was free trade in dis
guise.
1t was this deep-seated conviction
which animated the statement by Pres
| klGilI N1CINlillSt W d ClUSC ulO SOll1lGiCll-
tial friend, in Washington, on the after
noon of June 6, 1901, to the effect that
he (the PresidenD favored only that
plan of reciprocity sanctioned by the
Republican national platform of 1900
namely, reciprocity lin articles which
we do not ourselves produce" and that
he was opposed to any scheme Of trade
extension that would take from a sin
gle American workman his job. There
is precisely where William Mckinley
stood at the end of the first week in
June, at a time when the quick think
ers had him all thought out as ready to
abandon protection, and that is where
he stood when at Buffalo in the first
week of September he made his last
great speech.
Hence, we say, the overnight theo-
! rists would do well to think again once
or twice before they attribute to the
| dead President and to his successor in
office views and purposes regarding re-
ciproci.y not entertained by either Mr..
| Mckinley or Mr.. Roosevelt. The pol
icy Of Mckinley is to be continued abb
solutely unbroken by Roosevelt. The
country has this pledge recorded, as it
were, over McIlinley's coffin. OF it's
conscientious fultillment by President
Roosevelt there is no possible doubt.
There will be, as the Times Washing
ton correspondent states. mo precipi-
tate action by the President on the sub
| je.t Of reciprccity."-American Econo-
mist.
A Question of "snsar."
The consumption of sugar last year in
the United States averaged about fifty.
seven pounds for each inhabitant,
which at 5A cents a pound would cost
S3.42 apiece, or $16.10 for q family of
five persons. If the duty were removed
and the sugar trust allowed the people
to get the benefit thereof, the saving
- cN