Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1902-02-28
TARIFF FOR PHILIPPINES.
Injustice of the Protective Policy rs
Applied to Territory That
Belongs to us.

The argument of Senator Lodge, OF
Massachusetts, in bringing the Phil
ippine tariff measure before the sem
ute 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
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
iff 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
er is the protectionist idea, to OBJ
struct 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 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 proposition that calls for deal
of explanation. We have forced them
and are forcing them to acknowledge
the sovereignty of the United States.
AT the same time we are denying
them the commercial benefits of the
relationship which we compel and
holding them at the same disadvah-
tage that we hold the manufacturers
and producers of any foreign nation.
Well may they say with Lord Byron:
II stood among them, but not OF
Them The Philippines are placed
in an anomalous position by this tar
iff 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 theil
2 territory, and yet the territory wa.
not gained by conquest. Here is /;
people whom we are subiugating b,
force of arms, and trying to win tt
us while we yet propose Withholding
one of the best and strongest argu
ments why they should willingly
yield to American sovereignty. Car
it be wondered at that the Filipino:
who are studying the economic side
of the questions involved should hest
tate if not resist when they see thi.
manifestation of commercially hos
tile spirit?
The question, Invested of all dis
gnise and confusing presentation
resolves itself to this: Shall we O.
shall we not impose tariff on i'm
ports from one section of our terri
tory to another? Morally we shoul'
no more do so than we should il
some future exigency of lack of rev
enue place tariff boundary at TIL
Mississippi river? The Pacific oceal
is much wider than the Mississippi, t
he sure, but while it divides it ais
mites sections of United States ter
ritory. Where is the justification TO
the differentiation in the treatmen
of sections of the same country?
Material prosperity will prove on
of the strongest adjuncts of militar,
power in securing the submission O
the Filipinos to American rule. Tha
can never be justly attained while we
deny them the benefits of free com
mercial intercourse with this coun.
try.