The Farmington times. [volume] (Farmington, Mo.) 1874-1902, 1902-02-06
THE PHILIPPINE TARIFF.
hnts=.:-= OF the Protective Peiicy @1
Applies 60 Territory THAI
aalanka 90 Is.

The argument of Senator Lodge. Of
Massachusetts,, IN bringing the Phil
ipplne tariff measure before the SEN
ate diseloaeb In considerable mes1-
ure the fatal weaknesses Of the prop
okition. lie says that onr-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 mp to IS per cent But The
fact remains that under the senator's
proposition Is per cent. Of the fx-
orbitaHt protective taxes levied by
the Dingiey bill Is 10 he rxacted from
imports from the islands. AID this
tariff, bad enough in any ease, WAS
framed to be kyied upon goods Of
foreign origin, Gays the Utica OBJ
server.
The question. may fairly be put,
why, II one-quai9er OF these tariff
rates devised 20 protect American
workingmrn from dangerous foreign
competition" may justly be taken OF,
why should the remaining three.
quarters be retained7
The object OF the imposition Of tar
IN duties on the imports from for
eiRu countries Is twofold. One " tO
obtain revenue for the legitimate cx-
pcnEeB OF the government. The 9th
er IL the protectionist idea, 10 OBJ
strnct competition Of foreign manu-.
facturers and producers with manu-
facturers and producers in our own
country. But how does the protec-
tive tariff idea apply 90 the case OF
the Philippines? We have taken
these islands as our own. They are
not foreign 10 uE, why certain IA
vorcd interests should he protected
from competition from the Philip
pines any more than from compeii-
ton originating 10 Texas or Alaska
is a proposition that calls for n deal
Of explanation. We have forced them
and are forcing them 90 acknowledge
At the same time We are denying
them the commercial benefits OF thc
relationship which we compel end
holding them ~ the same disndyau-
iagr that We hold the manufacturers
and producers Of any foreign nation.
We'll may they say with Lord Byron:
81 stood among them. but not Of
than" The Philippines are placed
In an anomalous position by this tar
IN bill.
The people resident In the territory
iueiuded in the Louisiana purchase
were never questioned rs 90 their
right - free and equal trade with
the people who had purchased their
territory, and yet the territory was
not gained by conquest. Here Is
people whom We are subIugutine by
force 81 arms, and trying to win 10
rs while we yet propose Withholding
one of the best and strongest arRu.
mcnts why they should willingly
yield to American sovereignty Can
IL be wondered 40 that the Filipinos
who are studying the economic side
Of the questions involved should hest
tate II not resist when they see this
manifestation Of commercially hos
tile spirit?
The question. Invested Of all dis.
guisc and confusing presentation,
resolves itself to this: Shall we or
shall we not impose q tariff on inn
ports from one section ~ our terri
tory 70 another? Morally we should
no more do so than we should IN
some future cxigency Of lack Of rev
rnue place tariff boundary at the
Mississippi river? The Pacific ocean
Is much wider than the Mississippi, TO
be sure, but while Il divides II also
unites sections Of United States ter
ritory. Where is che justification for
the differentiation In the treatment
OF sections Of the same country?
Material prosperity will prove one
~ the strongest adiuncts OF military
power IN securing the submission Of
the Filipinos to American rule. That
can never be justly attained while We
deny them che benefits of free com.
mereiHl intercourse with this coun-
try.