Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1902-02-27
ROOSEVELT VS.. PROTECTION.

NVO0Aj v AIAA VOC 4 NVAAlS ASANs
When Theodore Roosevelt wrote
"9he Life of Thomas 81. Benton"
he had something to say concerning
protection" On pages 66 and 81
of that book will be found the fol-
lowing:
1.-The vote on the protective tariff law
OF 1923 furnished another illustration OF
theisolidarity OF the west. New England
had abandoned her free trade position
since 1924 and the north went strongly
for the new tariff; the southern seacoast
states, except Louisiana, opposed it bit
terly; and the bill was carried by the
support OF the western states, both the
free and the slave. This tariff bill was
the first of the immediate irritating
causes which induced South Carolina to
go into the notification movement.
Benton's attitude on the measure was
that OF a good many other men who, i'll
their public capacity, are obliged to
appear as protectionists, but who lacked
his frankness in stating their reasons.
He utterly disbelieved in and was OPP
posed to the principles OF the bill, but as
il had bid for and secured the interest OF
Missouri by heavy duty on lead, he felt
himself forced to support it; and he so
announced his position. He simply went
with his state precisely as did Webster,
the latter, in following Massachusetts,
change OF front and supporting the tariff
OF 1923, tarned full and complete
somersault. Neither the one nor the other
was to blame. Free traders are apt to
look at the tariff from a sentimental
standpoint, but it is in reality purely q
business matter, and should be decided
solely on the grounds of expedicney.
Political economists have pretty gener-
ally agreed that protection is vicious in
theory and harmful in practice; but if
the majority OF the people interested
wish it, and it affects only themselves
there is no earthly reason why they
should not be allowed to try the expert
ment to their hearts content. The
trouble is that it rarely does affect only
themselves; and in 1928, the evil was
peculiarly aggravating on account OF
the unequal way in which the proposed
law would effect different sections. 1t
purported to benefit the rest OF the
country. but it undoubtedly worked real
injury to the planter states and there is
small ground for wonder that the irrita-
ton over 1t in the region so effected
should have been intense"
What did Mr.. Roosevelt mean
when he said that "a good many
men in their public capacity are
obliged to appear as protection
ists?" What did he mean when he
said, political economists have
pretty generally agreed that pro-
lection is vicious in theory and
harmful in practlce?" What did
he mean when he referred to
protection as "the evil" and used
the expression peculiarly aggra-
vating' i'll citing a specific
instance?
Was author Roosevelsa protsc-
ZIONIST or free trader? In his
advocacy of, protection today are
we to understand he Is in the posi-
ton of a "good many men who, in
their public capacity, are obliged
to appear as protectionists?" Are
we to understand that he gives his
support to a policy that is "vicious
in theory and harmful in practice, u
to policy to which he refers as
'sthe evil' and against his honest
sentiment, and is he "obliged' to
do as he does in order to maintain
his hold up upon public office?