Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1902-06-14
REJECT COMPROMISE.
PRESERVE INTACT THE PRINCIPLES
OF REPUBLICANlSM
Having Declared Itself "Uneompro-
misingly in Favor of the American
System of Protection the Party Cam
not Afford to Swerve from That Policy.

The pending bill on Cuban reciproc-
| ity is, like most compromises, salts
factory to no one, but how far reach
| ing in its effect should it become a
| law, it is not safe to conjecture. We
| have never had compromise tariff
| law that has not been most injurious
to our industries. We never COM
promise upward, it is always down
ward.
| In 1916 we repealed the tariff of
1889 and it's amendments of 1912, and
| in a spirit of compromise and concili-
alton passed a law that was thought
| to be protective, but, alas! how dis
astrous it proved to be. We let down
| the bars just far enough for England
to dump her surplus at prices which
ruined our own manufacturers. 1t
was in 1916 that Brougham said in
| the House of Commons:
TT is well worth while to incur a
loss upon the first importation, in or
| der, by the glut, to stif1e in the cradle
| those infant manufacturers in the
| United States which the war has
| forced into existence"
| And England poured in her fabrics
| far below cost, and we dearly paid for
| the repeal
Again, in 1888, for compromise and
Cancellation. we substituted for a
splendid protective law, low duties
that were to be even lower and lower
| as the years went on. We compro-
missed our industrial liberty and prog
| ress to save the Union. We saved it
for a spell, but, oh, how dearly it cost
us! Ruin came quick and fast, and
he Jnio hod ho
| rupt.
The tariffs of 1876 and 1857 were
! free trade ION purpore,' just as the
tariffs of 1S41 and 1861 were protec-
| tive ION purpose"
But, in 1888, we resorted to compro-
mise again. Both houses of Congress
| and the President were Republican,
| but there was a clamor for revision
| So we had the commission and we
| lowered the duties, especially on wool
| Again we compromised with the free
! traders of the South and their north
| ern allies, and again we lost millions
| by the transaction.
And now again we are in the same
position as in 1916, 1888 and 1888. We
have a splendid tariff law in success
| full operation. We have prosperity
| and we have a president and both
| houses of Congress professedly pro-
| tectionist. And yet we have a bill
| pending to lower duties, and which
| strikes at our agricultural progress
| and prosperity, as well as a growing
industry giving employment to thou
sands, and bound to become one of
| our great industries if left alone.
What does it mean? Why this desire
to compromise again? A man or
xr-Io = I,
reputation is treated with contempt
and opprobrium. 1t should be and will
be the same with a political party
The Republican party once declared
| in it's national platform:
I'VE are uncompromisingly in favor
| of the American system of protec-
ton"
And yet to-day we are debating a
| compromise. History forbids it. Ex-
perience forbids it. Intelligence for
| bids it Common sense forbids it. Hon
or forbids it. But it is such a little
| compromise and so harmless, say
| Payne and Grosvenor and DalzeH and
Babcock and Russell and Lane. So
| says the frail creature at the begin
| ming of her downward career. But
there is always a next step, and soon
the descent becomes easy and rapid
Sau shame ana QlSnOnOr and ruin
come.
No man can afford to compromise
| mis- reputation. No woman can afford
to compromise her fair name. No par
ty can afford to compromise it's honor.
Every Republican in Congress should
be "uncompromisingly in favor of the
American system of protection" If
any swerve from that principle he is
| dishonorable towards his constituents
and toward his country. He was
elected to protect all the industries
and all the labor of his country. If
ne has changed his faith he should
resign his seat and let another take
his place. There should be no volun-
tary surrender; there should be no
willing compromise We are making
history these days, as we were in
1916 and 1888 and 1888. Shall the pres
ent be repetition of the past?