The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-24

| Ivy as Wen as nOn-cOmpetltlye products.
Yet Notwithstanding this fact and the
| utterances of his great Buffalo speech.
we have heard distinguished representa-
| yves or the Republican party on the other
SIDE or TINS Chamber during this very
: session OF Congress declare that Mckinley
dld not believe in reciprocity in competi-
| tive products. Do YOU stand for the re-
ciproelty of the Dingley Act or do you
! stand for the reciprocity of the Amerl-
can protective Tariff League? The Ding
| ley tariff act authorizes reciprocity trea-
ties, and purposely put certain sched-
| ules unnecessarily high, even from the
| protective standpoint, so that they
might be cut down bv reciprocal trade
agreements. The Senator from Iowa (Mr
Doliiver), IN speech in this Chamber
not long since, as have many other lead
ing Republicans, bore testimony that
such was the purpose and intent of this
act and its trainers. The American Pro-
tectve Tariff League, representing the
'stand-patters" of your party. deny this
and declare such policy would be anti
Republican and destructive of the basic
| principles OF protection. For which do
| you stand?
Again, Mr. President, does the Cuban
treaty, which reduces the dutv on sugar
and tobacco, American farm products
in the interest of the sugar and tobacco
of our chief competitor, illustrate the
Republican theory of reciprocity, or does
the ultimatum of certain leaders of the
majority in this body, reported i'm the
| Washington Post of today, and which the
Senator from Colorado has just read 10
us, to the effect that they Will have
nothing more to do with reciprocity based
on concessions on competitive products
OF this country, represents the views o.
your party on that subject? The Cuban
treaty represents the only legislation OF
the past three years in favor of reciproc-
. ity, and in passing that measure You
came near running amuck. You voted
lor it solidly but many of you denounced
it bitterly. We witnessed the spectacle
of one Senator on the other side of this
Chamber Justify denouncng it on one day
as betrayal of Republican pledges and
principles and meekly voting for it on the
nsxt day.
In your platform of 1900 you promised
reciprocity. The Cuban treaty is youl
only performance. If it does not truly
represent the reciprocity you promised
and claimed to stand for, and there are
thousands and hundreds of thousands IN
your party who say it does not, you have
not only broken your pledge, but you
have betrayed the confidence of those
! who relied on that pledge b. giving ther>
a reciprocity the opposite of that prom
! ised
| 1t is idle, Mr.. President, to deny that
the Republican party is DIT sea upon
| the subject of reciprocity. and it is equal
| w idle to claim that there is harmony In
that party on the subject OF tariff revis-
/ ion. One faction of that party favors
reduction by reciprocity; another de
nounces that as ant-Republcan. One
/ faction charges that the Dingley tariff
shelters the trusts, and for that reason
should be reduced; while another faction
denies that tariff affords such shelter or
hat tn dn n
the trusts. One 1action demands reduc-
tions upon the broad ground that tbs
schedules are in some instances oppres,
sively high, and unjust TO the consumer;
another faction declares these schedules
ideal and that they must be sacredly
| maintained
You think you have crushed out the
Iowa idea so-called, in your party, but
you have not and you can not. You
have not stihed and you can not stirc
the demand in YOUR party for tariff re
auctions while your tariff schedules con
tinue to shelter monopoly-the common
enemy Of Democratic and Republican
consumers alike. The conflict now on
between the benefciaries and the victim
in your party of the special privileges
and monopolies of this system of Inlqul-
ties, though deferred, was inevitable. The
cry of stand pat from those in yom
own party whom these laws are enrich
ing can not longer silence the demand
for a reduction from the consumers in
your own PARTY, to whom these laws
have all but doubled the cost of living.
The slogan of ''Let well enough alone, =
while satisfying the trusts and monOpo.
lies which thern laws have enabled TO
corner the American markets, shuts
| the door OF hope upon those in your own
party who must have enlarged markets
and who find themselves condemned by
| laxv m PR.
tween these clashirg interests in your own
party you will have all you can do To
keep your own household in order with
out worrying yourselves about ours.
Neither, Mr.. President, is there unity
in the Republican party upon the import,
ant subject of finance. In its platform
! OF 1900 that party told the people the
/ gold standard was secure The cam
paign of that year had hardly opened
before the people were told that this
| declaration of the platform was mis-
take and that the gold standard was no,
| secure but was subject to be overthrown
by Executive order Of an unfriendly
! President, and that it was necessary 70
retain that party in power that it might
| make it secure by legislation.
| The ablest financicrS and statesmen,
both In the Republican and the Demo.
cratic party. are agreed upon the propo-
i sition that our present currency system
| Is at pest Dut q -ludt II npcuS
| radical revision, and the Republican.
party not once, but repeatedly, has
promised such revision. During the last
session of the Congress we were told that
the finances of the country were in as
unsettled and dangerous condltfon-thal
| legislation was needed in oruer to prevent
threatened panic. We were told that
our currency system was too inelastic.
that there must be legislation to relieve
this condition, which we were as
sured would recur with the demand o.
each recurring harvest time.
Yet, Mr.. President, more than two years
have elapsed since Mr. Roosevelt came
into power. three years since the last
national election. and there mas been no
financial legislation. absolutely none.
Why? 1t is not because legislation Us
not needed from the Republican stand
I point 1t is not because that party has
not promised financial legislation to rem.
edy these serious and vital defects. It Is
not because the Republican party has
not had solid majority in Congress dur
| ing the whole of this time. Why, then,
| have we not had this LEGISLATION? 1t is
! because, Mr.. President, the Republican.
party have not been able to agree among
| themselves upon any definite plan or