The times., 1901-06-10
A Lack of Republican Harmony.

There are many indications that there
will not be entire harmony upon the
tariff trust question among the Repub-
lican brethren when the next Congress
meets. Just at present there appear
to be radical differences Of opinion
among them with reference TO the sub
ject. but TO what extent these differ
euces may be reconciled between now
and December cannot. Of course, be
fcreseen. It is safe, though, to assume
that every possible effort to that end
VIII be made by the Republican leaders,
for it is evident that they are nervous
over the issue as it is now shaping it
self This is clearly shown by the re-
mark OF Representative Dalzen to the
effect that any discussion of the tariff
al this time would be detrimental not
only to the Republican party, but TO the
country If the latter part Of his state
ment is true il would be d good reason
for avoiding a discussion Of the subje I,
for the opponents of the tariff law as it
now stands certainly have no desire to
injure the country, but quite the re-
verse.
There will, however, be no disposition
to accept Mr.. Dalzelrs statement on
this point as conclusive. for he is a very
extreme protectionist, which necessarily
coIors his judgment But his declara-
ton that such a discussion viii be detri-
mental to the Republican party must be
accepted as a candid expression of his
opinion The query, therefore. logically
presents itself. Why should such a dis
cussiou harm the Republican party il
its position is correct?'' If the Dingley
law Is fostering the trusts, and the
trusts are injuring the country, mani
festly the country cannot be injured by
q discussion of the matter, however
seriously it might operate to the pOliu-
cal disadvantage Of Mr. Dalzells party.
Il on the other hand the trusts are a
good thing, it viii be q positive gain to
the country TO have that fact demon
strated by fun discussion, and if it can
be shown that the DingIey law is IN no'
wise responsible for the enormous
growth OF these combines. it cannot be
otherwise than beneficial 10 the party
that stands sponsor for the law.
But all this aside, it is certain that the
discussion VIII go on despite the objec-
tions Of those who, as suggested by Mr..
Babcock, regard a prohibitive tariI
very much as a Chinaman does his joss.
The Democrats viii not allow the sub
5ect TO rest. and, as intimated at the
outset. the Republicans themselves are
showing considerable divergence Of
opinion concerning the matter.
The attitude Of Mr.. Babcock, the
Chairman of the Republican Congress
sionaI Committee, IS well known. He
has taken strong ground against the
trusts, and proposes as a remedy the
removal Of protective duties from COM
modities the production and prices Of
which are controlled by such combina-
tions. He has assumed a somewhat
belhgerent tone. declaring that his
proposition must receive fair consider
alton. and that any attempt at suppress
sion in the Committee on Ways and
Means will mean an open struggle and
a hard one on the floor Of the House
Under existing conditions, single
member cannot make much Of fight
in the House Of Representatives. Even
q strong minority is well-nigh helpless
under the rules Of that body. Hence,
when Mr.. Babcock threatens to make
the issue direct, upon the floor Of the
House, he must feel assured of consid-
cradle Republican support for his meas
ure.
There can be no doubt that, in the
main, the Republican leaders are op-
posed to any revision Of the DingIey
law as a blow at the trusts. The most
Of these leaders profess 10 regard in
drstrial combinations as a natural evo-
luton. and decidedly advantageous to
the country. II this view is sound, IL
follows that to whatever extent the
Dingley law has aided IN evolving giant
trusts, that law must be wise and
benefcent measure. Moreover, an ac-
Acknowledgement that high protection has
led to the formation Of trusts would be
conceding point to their political op-
ponents. and this is something that the