Durango semi-weekly herald., 1904-09-26
STRONG POINTS ADVANCED
IN FAIRBANKS LETTER
OF ACCEPTANCE

istration of President Mckinley did
well to aid in the creation of credit
for being the first to invoke its juris.
diction in the settlement of the Pious
Fund cases
Our relations with the world were
never better, We have avoided all en-
tangling alliances. and, in the Ian
guage of the eminent Secretary of
State. We are without an ally and
without an enemy"
| The convention wisely declared in
favor of protection which guards and
develops our industries" and that
the measure of protection should al
ways at least equal the difference in
| the cost of production at home and
abroad"
This principle was embodied in the
platform of the convention which first
| nominated Abraham Lincoln and It
has continued to be one of the cardi-
nal doctrines of the Republican party
during the forty-five years which has
elapsed since then. 1t has been incor-
porated into the public law and has
become the foundation of our indus
trial system. 1t has been regarded by
the Republican party as a reasonable
and appropriate exercise of the legis-
lative power when imposing duties
upon imports to discriminate in favor
Of American industries. This principle
is dictated by due regard for our
own enterprises and industries, and
is founded upon the highest consider
atoms of national interest
The Democratic convention which
lately assembled at st. Louis denounc-
ed protection as robbery of the
many 10 enrich the few" and favored
a revision and gradual reduction of
the tariff"
The issue is thus distinctly made
1t is by no means a new one, for
while the Republican party has uni.
formly adhered to the policy of pro
lection, the Democratic party has been
consistent in its opposition. 1t has
held to the doctrine of a revenue tar
in. and during all the years of the
contest has maintained that the pro-
lection system was opposed to good
morals. in contravention of the CON
stitution and in violation of sound
economies. The objections which are
now urged against 1t are only rep
etition of those which have found ut
| terance for many years. The differ
ence between the parties is radical
and fundamental. 1t involves the prin-
ciple of protection and not simply the
measure of the duties to be laid
A revision of duties should be made
only when conditions have so chang
ed that the public interest demand
their alteration, and they should be
so revised as to preserve and not des-
troy the protective principle.
A revision and reduction by those
who regard the tariff as a robbery
must awaken serious apprehension
among all whose capital is employed
or who are engaged at labor in the
various enterprises throughout the
the country, which depend in large
| measure upon the maintenance of the
| protective system. A revision of the
tariff along revenue lines means the
Increased importation of the products
of foreign manufacture, which come
into competition with our domestic
production. 1t means a loss to the
American wage earners and to Amer
lean capital. This is, therefore, not
n theoretical question which is pre-
sented to them, but is one of imme-
diate and practical moment 1t can
be settled by them. and by them only.
History abundantly shows that the
/ .,t ,,,J 81 :
the country has occurred during the
period when the protective tariff has
been maintained and that during this
time labor has received its largest
rewards and capital has been most
profitably engaged.
The development of the country dur.
ing the last forty-four years is com
plete vindication of the virtues and
efficacy OF protective system. Its
benefits have been diffused through all
sections Of the country and among all
our people 1t has enlarged our home
market until 1t has become the great
est in the world. This we should moi
unnecessarily surrender. We have be
liaved 1t to be wise national policy
to preserve the American market fol
American producers and to secure tt
our workingmen an increased wage
scale.
In 1860 the value Of our exports ant
manufactures was $40.345,S92. TWEEN
ty years later 1t was $102,856, 6,015, ant
last year $452,445 629. The pretensior
OF Its opponents that the protectiv,
tariff is inconsistent with the exten
, sion Of our foreign commerce is thu
:. denied by actual policies Of the Re