The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-05-27
Strength Proved by Enemies.

ada must be making much Roadway, to |
Judge from the way in which such organs
as the Protectionist, of the Home Market
club Of Boston and the American Econ 1
Iomist are now assailing the idea Of i'm
proved tariff relations with our northern
neighbor. The current number Of the Pro-
tectionist devotes an extremely emphatic
article to the report Mr.. Eugene G. Hay
lot this city recently made to the Mime
sota branch of the National Reciprocity
League on the desirability and probability
of reciprocity with Canada. In another
article in the same paper Mr.. Hays re-
port is again incidentally attacked.
The first article confines itself chiefly
ito combating Mr.. Hays prediction that
~ a satisfactory commercial treaty be-
Eween the United States and Canada shall
he negotiated and ratified, Il have rea-
son to believe that the Canadian govern
snent will by additional tariff legislation,
discriminate against certain European
countries in the way that will be helpful
Ito our commerce." OF course there is
abundance Of room for difference Of opin-
ion as to what Canada might do in this
respect. but what especially concerns us
LIS the attempt Of the Protectionist to iden-
tify reciprocity with free trade.
In his report Mr.. Hay spoke Of 1.-The
great unclassifed high protected indus
tries as having, "in the madness Of their
power, banded together to oppose every
proposed change in our tariff laws" On
this the Protectionist comments: Even
the New York Evening Post would hardly
use harsher terms than these; they are
searmarks which identity Mr.. Hay and his
lock
It seems to us that the Protectionist
shares some Of the madness of the highly
protected industries when it accuses the
advocates of reciprocity with Canada Of
being free traders. AS a matter Of fact,
the personnel of the northwestern advo-
Gates Of reciprocity with Canada Is largely
made up of stanch protectionists, who
consider that, in advocating reciprocity,
they are as essentially protectionists as
ever. Mr.. Hay himself has been noted
for his devotion to protective tariff and
was one Of those who held the bridge in
Minnesota when the republicans Of this
state were largely inclined to tariff for
revenue only. He is not even a believer
In the iowa idea"
The reciprocity protectionists do not be-
1ieve that the whole theory or practice of
protection is bound up with any particu-
lar tariff schedule or any particular tariff
law. They interpret protection as mean
ling a national policy that is good for
American manufacturers and farmers, for
the whole American population, In fact.
They thoroly and sincerely believe that
1.-THE United States can be vastly bene-
fitted by a suitable reciprocity treaty
with Canada which will likewise benefit
that country The relations between Can
ada and the United States are such that
they cannot be properly classed with those
,extstins between this and any other coun-
try in the world. Even II reciprocity as
q general national policy were to be con-
idemned, it might still be satisfactorily
applied to Canada. So true is this that
the democrats, while contending for gen
eral tariff revision and against reciprocity
treaties or agreements, admit that Can
ada stands in class by itself.
protective tariff, when applied to some
particular country, may turn out to be not
what it's name implies. This is true to
q, considerable extent Of the Dingley tar
iff as applied to Canada The friends OF
Canadian reciprocity believe that tarln
ran he particularly modified by a CONNER
cial treaty between the two countries in
= manner that will protect American in
dustry in the sense Of benefting 1T, and
at the same time benefit Canada
In the report which the Protectionist
oriticizes Mr. Hay gave two reasons fol-
maintaining a general protective tarin:
First, to protect industries struggling with
poyerty and inexperience against the TOO
fierce competition Of the longer established
industries of Europe; second. to maintain
the high American standard Of living The
first Of these reasons as Mr.. Hay says, Is
necessarily ephemeral; we no longer have
any infant industries that need protection
against the experience and capital OF Eu'
rope Protection for the American stand
ard Of living we still need. but to quote
Mr.. Hay:
So long as the protective policy was
necessary to protect our infant industries
the general tariff system was satisfactory
We cared nothing for the markets Of the
world, our chief concern was to protec
our home market for the enjoyment Of oul
infant industries That period is past
The surplus product of American labo
and American enterprise now seeks mar
ket, and the plain dictates OF business
Judgment point to the general and conven
tional system as the tariff system Of thu
United States in the future. We have a
different times adopted this system in tn
past, but it should now become the estab
lished policy Of our government.
This means that we should by con
ventions or treaties with other countrie
reduce our tariffs or take them Off alto
gether, when this may be done without
affecting the American wage standard, i
exchange for similar favors which wi
open new markets for our surplus product
and extend our commerce on advantage
Gus terms. This is reciprocity. It shoul
not be confined to non competitive arti
cles, but should as well go into the list
where we compete, whenever this can b
done without paralyzinz or impairing GU
industrial system by affecting the wage
OF labor. !.
Professors and instructors at the uni
versity are embarrassed because the
salaries have not been paid for tw