Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1902-02-06
TARIFF FOR PHILIPPINES.
fnjustice Of the Protective Policy n
Applied to Territory That
Belongs to Us. e.


Massachusetts,, in bringing the Phil
ipp;ne tariff measure before the sem
ate discloses in considerable meas
ure the fatal weaknesses of the prop
osition. He says that one-fourth of
the Dingley rates is to be deducted
from the charges now levied on the
imports from the islands and that the.
proposed reduction on exports levied
in the island would bring the total
concession up to IS per cent. But the
fact remains that under the senator's
proposition rs per cent. of the ex-
orbitant protective taxes levied by
the Dingley bill is to be exacted from
imports from the islands. And this
tariff, bad enough in any case, was
framed to be levied upon goods of
foreign origin, says the Utica OBJ
server.
The question may fairly be put.
why, if one-quarter of these tariff
rates devised to protect American
workingmen from dangerous foreign
competition" may justly be taken off,
why should the remaining three
quarters be retained?
The object of the imposition of tar
if duties on the imports from for
eign countries is twofold. One is to
obtain revenue for the legitimate ex-
penses of the government. The 9th
err is the protectionist idea, to OBJ
struct competition of foreign manu-
%facturers and producers with manu-
facturers and producers in our OWE
country. But how does the protec-
tive tariff idea apply to the case of
the Philippines? We have taken
these islands as our own They are
not foreign to us. Why certain IA
vored interests should be protected
from competition from the Philip
pines any more than from competi-
ton originating in Texas or Alaska
is a proposition that calls for a deal
of explanation. We have forced them
and are forcing them to acknowledge
the sovereignty of the United States.
them the commercial benefits of the
relationship which we compel and
holding them at the same disadvan-
tage that we hold the manufacturers
and producers of any foreign nation.
Well may they say with Lord Byron:
81 stood among them, but not Of
them" The Philippines r placed
in an anomalous position by this tar
if bill.
The people resident in the territory
included in the Louisiana purchase
were never questioned as to their
right to free and equal trade with
the people who had purchased their
territory, and yet the territory was
not gained by conquest. Here is a
people whom we are subjugating by
force of arms, and trying to win to
us while we yet propose Withholding
one of the best and strongest argu-
ments why they should willingly
yield to American sovereignty. Can
it be wondered at that the Filipinos
who are studying the economic side
of the questions involved should hest
tate if not resist when they see this
manifestation of a commercially hos
tile spirit?
The question, Invested of all dis
guise and confusing presentation,
resolves itself to this: Shall we or
shall we not impose a tariff on inn
ports from one section of our terri
tory to another? Morally we should
nc more do so than we should in
some future exigency of lack of rev.
enue place a tariff boundary at the
Mississippi river? The Pacific ocean
is much wider than the Mississippi, to
be sure, but while it divides it also
unites sections of United States ter
ritory. Where is the Justification for
the differentiation in the treatment
of sections of the same country?
Material prosperity will prove one
of the strongest adjuncts of military
power in securing the submission of
the Filipinos to American rule. That
can never be justly attained while we
deny them the benefits of free COM
mercial intercourse with this coun-
try.