The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-03-28
THAT TICKLISH TARIFF
HANDLE IT WITH CARE EXTREME
Treatise by Congressman McCIeary
GA the Lumber Interest in
This Connection.

Washington, March 28.-In a letter in
response to one from the Merchants Pro-
tectlYe association of Mai kato, Mimi,
on the lumber tariff Representative Nc
Cleary says:
There is. evidently, some uneaslness over
the tariff. So there was in 1892, OF course
you and l know that then as now, most OF
that uneasiness was not well founded but
was stirred up and. cultivated by the op-
ponents OF the protective tariff system.
MI. McCleary reviews the campaign
questions or 1892 and 1886 and the vic
tory for honest money and continues:
And now that good times and good prices
are again prevalent, the old cry of 1892 Is
again being raised. But I have too much
respect for the American people to fear that
they will so soon be again led into the slough
OF despond. AS practical business men you
know. Of course, that. the price of lumber to-
day Is higher than it was in 1897 like the
price OF most other Things chiefly because of
the greatly Increased demand for lumber, BY
reason of the fact that our people everywhere
are doing well and are building and improving
homes. But If, from any cause, the purchas-
ing power or our people should be reduced,
the price of lumber, well as the price Of
other things-lncludng the labor of the work
ingman and the crops of the farmer-would
fall fast enough and far enough to satisfy
even those who are now most loudly demand
ing lower prices for the things they have to
buy.
Thoughtful people understand that bust
ness implies both buying and selling, and that
when people get fair prices for what they sell
they must expect to pay fair prices for what
they buy. Experience has demonstrated that
there is danger to all kinds of business in
''tinkering with the tariff especially when it
has been constructed along the lines OF pro-
lection to American industries.
In essence, protection is matter Of prin-
ciple; tariff schedules are an incident OF it.
Schedules may change with circumstances
the principle remains. A tariff bill dealing
with thousands of interests, some of them
conflicting one with the other. Is necessarily
somewhat Of q compromise as to schedules.
Some of the schedules Of even the admirably
constructed Dingley act might, probably, have
better been made lower. Among these might
be mentioned the tariff on lumber
There are many men IN congress who
though believing as I do that certain scned-
ules might properly and prohtably be re-
yised, are like myself reluctant to urge
changes which might involve general tariff
revision (Which Is a very large matter) or
account of the danger to the interests of the
country implied in such general revision
eW are doing so we'll a nation that there is
natural hesitation at making any move thai
might disturb our prosperity, which even the
opposition now concede to De great ana gen
eral.
On the other hand, there Is much to be sale
for the proposition that the tariff should be
revised by its friends and not by it's foes
Among the questions that l have been con
sfdering are there: What should the tarlf
on lumber be? Presidents in and representa-
tives of Minnesota should, of course, not for
get the interest Of our state in this industry
Under existing conditions Of demand would
tDrtF 11yr,o nn
affect the cost of lumber to the consumer
In view Of our rapidly disappearing forests, i
lumber a proper subject for protectv
tariff? If the tariff on lumber snoulo d.
changed can the change be effected Wltnou
necessitating general tariff revision. II /
should appear advisable to remove or reduc
the tariff on lumber, should the reduction b.
effected by direct removal OF the amount oe
tArmined to be wise, or should the reduction
ha effected through a reciprocal arrangement
with countries which might become sources o
supply?