New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-03-12

specting the proposition to reduce the tariff on
Cuban products coming into this country
BEET SUGAR ARGUMENTS.
The manifesto says In part:
We oppose the proposition 10 reduce the tar
IF Cuban products coming into this coun-
try because IL involves a relaxation OF the pro-
tective principle.
the Democratic party for not keeping faith
with the American sugar growers; we seek
not 70 merit for ourselves the same condemna-
tion.
The proposition to reduce the sugar tariff
constitutes. in essence, an abandonment Of the
protective principle, even though II removes
only one-flfth OF the duty imposed by the Ding
ley law. And this abandonment is most unhap-
py, because. applied TO the pursuit OF agrlcult-
is the most conspicuous instance in which
specific and manifest protection IS given to the
farmer: and at the moment when the sugar beet
industry is not only in its infancy but in an in
fancy so lusty and promising as 10 demonstrate
the certainty of rapid and prodgious growth
Heretofore the farmer has beer compelled TO
find his justification of protection, from the
standpoint of personal interest, in the prosper
ity reflected from the industrial artisan. and,
in the main, he has, through good report and
evil, been braveiy loyal.
The American market for over S1O0,OO0,000
worth of sugar annually is righuully the Amer
ican farmers. We shall encourage no policy
which delays the time when he shall come into
his
DDI1 10 CUBA DENIED-
AS TO the fancied duty TO Cuba because OF
distress which is only apparent in the admit
ted fact that every man the island has all
F.. the work he can do at higher wages than he
ever before received. we have only to say that
the low price of sugar is n mere business con-
6ition of temporary character 0he cause of
which has probably been removed within the
past few days by the Brussels conference), and
that TO compromise with it on the terms pro-
posed IS IN its interference with the policy Of
protection, TO pay too high a price for all the
good that can possibly come to those whom IT
3 IS intended 10 benefit.
Entirely Independent of its effect the beet
sugar industry a present fact in established
concerns. il would smother the further develop
ment OF the industry through the scores of
plants now IN various stages Of active advance
snent.
In SO far as the proposition processes to be in
the line Of Republican reciprocity, we assert
that II is essentially denial OF that great
policy. We dem that reciprocity is desirable
except as a corollary to the greater policy Of
protection. Republican reciprocity, wise reel
procity, does not seek an exchange of products
at the expense of any American industry; 1t
does not seek 10 give commercial advantage TO
any foreign product which comes into com
petition with our own products; il does not seek
an exchange Of products which deprives any
American artisan Of his work or any American
farmer of an opportunity prohtably 10 till his
soil
To say that the duty on sugar is to be lowered
on the plea that il helps Cuba is to say that ii
must always be lowered when Cuba needs help
and a reduction OF one-ffth by the House of
REPRESENTATIVES means that elsewhere. both in
and out of Congress. the extent Of that reduction
shall be measured by the varying views of those
who consider it
majority, what wise business man can be in
duced to invest his money in the beet sugar in
future development? And If that Republican
majority is once constrained to such policy,
what license have We to believe that the citadel
OF protection Will not he further assaulted in the
house of its friends?
In closing his statement. Mr.. Tayler announced
that he would demand vote on his resolution.
He received a round Of applause.
NEW THEORY ADVANCED.
Mr.. Jenkins OF Wisconsin. at this point ad-
Vanced the novel theory that Cuba was now. and
had been since the ratification Of the Treaty of
Paris. under the sovereignty Of the United
States His contention was that Cuba
United States territory; that the people Of Cuba
might be permitted to erect a government. but
not one Of sovereignty.
Mr. Sibley of Pennsylvania, offered COM
promise proposition for 90 per cent reduction
Cuban products. but with limit on Its life
TO December l, 1903 This proposition Mr. Tay
Ter characterized satisfactory to neither side.
Mr.. Morrell, of Pennsylvania, advocated har-
mony, and his colleague, ex-Speaker Grow.
urged the acceptance Of the reciprocity PROPOSE
ton. largely on the ground of moral obligation.
Mr.. MondelI, Of Wyoming, opposed the Ways
and Means Committee plan.
William Alden Smith. Of Michigan made a
vigorous speech opposing the Ways and Means
Committees plan. He attacked the House or
ganization and leadership, and announced that
he would not follow it when it stumbled, 1T
was now doing. He cited the records Of mem
hers OF the Ways and Means Committee to show
that they formerly opposed what they were now
urging. Mr.. Smith protested strongly against
Executive interference in legislative matters.
He said he had great admiration for Mr.. Roose
welt. but the President had no right to attempt
TO coerce legislative action.
MIR. Cannon cOunselled harmony, and opposed
TOO precipitate action.
Mr.. Dick of Ohio, favored letting well enough
alone, and non-action on Cuban reciprocity.
1t said that the administration will
ing to accept the Sibley compromise.
At 11:40 o'clock Speaker Henderson moved an
adjournment until next Tuesday and Mr.. Little
field, of Maine, moved to amend and strike out
Tuesday" which would have caused sine die
adjournment, but his amendment was lost, 81
TO 70. Mr.. Henderson's motion was then car
ried, y TO "a