The Oskaloosa herald., 1903-10-01

u
that he produces. We have such &
population, and its growth has beer
the wonder of the world Would we
have had it under the influence of free
| trade? The second thing he wants Is
| that this population shall be able tc
] buy and consume what he has to sell
/ we have such population. Would
\ we have had It under free trade? The
| third thing that ne wants is transpor.
| tation from his farm to the market
We have in this country, besides all
our waterways, 100000 miles OF rail.
way. Would we have had these miles
| of railway under free trade? Fourth,
he wants all the Inventions when
genius can discover, to aid him in
planting and harvesting his crop.
| Would we have had these inven-
! lions under free trade? The truth
is tina with our vast regions of
| territory, the farmer, without the
development which can be imputed to
no other cause than protective duties,
would have had both inadequate mar
kets and inadequate access to them.
For illustration, take Iowa. 1t is a
conservative estimate to say that the
farms of the whole state, good, bad
and Indifferent, are worth from $45 to
$50 per acre What gave them this
value? Suppose that the manufacture
ing interests of the United States had
been left to the mercies of free trade,
what would New York, Philadelphia,
Boston, Pittsburg, Cleveland, and Chi
cago have been? Insignificant as COM
pared with their present magnificent
proportions What would the tens of
thousands of cities and towns in which
the protected industries are now being
carried on have been farms compet-
ing with Iowa in the markets of the
old world; and if these cities, towns
and manufacturing homes had not
been expanded under tariff duties,
who would have built the more than
5000 miles of railway which now
touch every community in the state of
Iowa and bear with little expense and
with great speed the products of our
farms to the markets in which they
are sold? have little patience with
the theorist who cannot look deeply
enough into the the philosophy
of human activity to see that
the farmer, more than any other
man, is the beneficiary of the de-
velopment and general growth of
his country. His land is worth moth
ing, his labor is worth nothing, his
products are worth nothing, unless the
stream of a busy life flows all about
his cherished acres. The human mind
is mysterious thing, and it Is diff
cult to predict as vagaries, but it may
be foretold with absolute confidence
that whatever decisions the democrats
may be able to fasten in the hearts of
the people, it will not succeed in it's
effort to convice the farmer that pro-
tections robs him of his just dues.
Reciprocity.
Upon the subject of reciprocity, the
democratic platform is silent, and nee
essarily so. There is no place in the
political economy of the democratic
party for reciprocity. Insisting as it
does, upon free trade. the basis for re-
ciprocal trade arrangements is at once
destroyed. for there can be no such
thing unless we have tariff duties
which we can yield in trade. The re-
publican platform upon this point de-
clares:
I'VE indorse the policy of reciproci-
"ty as the natural complement of pro-
lection. Reciprocity beteween ma
''tions is trade for mutual advantage,
"and both sides must give and take.
Protection builds up domestic indus
"try and trade and secures our own
markets for ourselves, reciprocity
builds up foreign trade and finds an
outlet for our surplus"
1t is not new doctrine in Ameri-
can politics, but it was a theory only
until Blaine made it living part of
our economic policy. 1t was in full
force and accomplishing great things
for the business of the country when
it was stricken down by the democrats
when they came into power in 1894.
Its revival was provided for in the
Dingley law of 1897, and the last and
most eloquent speech of McKinleys
career was devoted to its explanation
and defense. In recent years 1t has
not received the loyalty 1t deserves.
Many people have misconveived its
scope, and have opposed every trade
treaty which gave something for the
benefits received. Our platform of
this year pledges the party to reci-
procity in its true sense; that is, the
reciprocity which gives as well as
takes. We will no longer dream of
condemning reciprocal treaty simply
because 1t admits foreign commodi-
ties to our shores upon terms more
favorable than heretofore existing
but will examine also the volume of
our commodities which under it's OPP
Grafton can be sold in the foreign mar
kets opened or widened by its provis-
ions. Reciprocity is called the COM
plement OF protection, and so it Is.
Looking at all other nations as hostile
competitors, protection is the banner
of war, and ii bars them out II, how
ever, any one Of them approaches I'M
der flag Of truce, and is willing TO
make terms for getting in, IL the terms
be favorable. 1t is admitted, and there
after we do business with that nation
according to the terms of the treaty of
peace. Protection relates to imports
reciprocity to exports. Protection Is
the best adjustment that we can make
within ourselves to enlarge the pro-
duction of the country. Reciprocity is
the best adjustment we can make with
another nation to enlarge the produc-
tion Of our own country The object
Of the two policies Is identical-to de-
yelop to the utmost our own resources
and create opportunity for the greatest
possible amount of work by the Amer