The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1902-12-19
VIEWS OF THE LATE
THOMAS BRACKET REED

celebrated bill and retain its virtues.
Where would you enact such a bill'
Why, in your own mind, of course.
Unfortunately, bill enacted in the
mind has no extraterritorial force.
A bill enacted by Congress, like the
progress of the world, is the result
of fierce conflict of opposing
human interests, and must be so.
When men talk carelessly of Tariff
revision, they talk of Tariff never
yet established, and one that never
can be. They dream of Tariff
which exactly suits them individual
", while real Tariff bill is one
which measurably satisfies the
country as whole.
But can we not have, sitting in
perpetual session, body of men,
non-partisan, judiclous, wise and
incorruptible7 Yes, in your mind.
You can have anything in your
mind. Imagination is unlimited,
and it is very delightful to wander
round among possible impossible
ties. Just think of non-partisan
Free Trader sitting on Tariff tax!
Of course, he would be above any
prejuice except his own. l saw one
Tariff Commission sit in 1882, and
Its report was not enacted into law.
All its mistakes were, and the result
was satisfactory to nobody.
What we had better do is to re-
member where we are and what our
dangers are. Enterprises of bust
ness are not entered upon by heller
skelter. They are the result of cal
culation. One of the first inquiries
of the promoter or maker is. How
many of our present conditions are
to remain? If there are to be un-
certalnties in the future he will not
dare to act. What can you imagine
that would dampen business mans
ardor more than to be called on to
guess what a new Tariff bill would
bel The prophetic instinct in the
human creature is there beyond its
limit.
We ought to let the Tariff alone;
we ought to defend it against all
corners for the good of the nation.
We are doing more than well and
need not hunt for disaster! That
will come in due time.
Meanwhile, let US see what people
are trying to do. Nobody dares to
attack the Tariff directly. Every
effort against is a flank attack. The
Tariff is to be changed, not because
it has not produced prosperity, but
because it has produced large cor
norations. We so hate and fear
large corporations that we will
destroy prosperity rather than not
destroy them. To argue such
proposition would be discredit to
the American people. The most
plausible attack has come from the
demand for reciprocity. In my
judgment, it will be found that, when
the glittering generallties of reel
procity are refined down to actual
statement of what is proposed, the
American people will never have it.
The history of reciprocity the world
over has been that any treaty thus
far devised has been one sided, and
the country losing has put an end to
it. We tried it with Canada. Our
export trade increased thirteen per
cent, and theirs increased in eleven
years five hundred per cent. That
treaty no longer exists. We had one
with the Sandwich Islands, and on
the average we gave them S., ooo, 900
RENTED sugar duties year, and
sold them $4,000, 900 worth of
goods. In other words, we gave
them all our exports and million
dollars besides. This is what the
friends of Free-Trade were trying to
do for Cuba when we were so appre-
hensive that that island would be
ruined if we did not give in charity
what had no foundation in iusti ce.