Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1904-01-28

He has changed his views upon this
question, and we are sorry to lose him
| from the republican ranks, but much
prefer to hear him speak in favor of
free trade from the democratic side
OF the chamber than upon our own.
We cannot afford to trif1e with the
prosperity of the American farmer in
the hope of building up American cit
les. 40 IS 81
Canada is not asking us for free
trade, nor even pressing reciprocity
treaty.
Mr.. Charlton, M. p, said at the recip-
rocity convention, December 10, 1902:
The call is with the United States.
Canada has definitely and deliberately
retired from taking the initiative. (Ca-
madam Annual Review, 1902, page
| 1889
That convention finally resolved "to
remove all duties from the natural pro-
ducts of each country"
Americanizins Canada.
Free trade with Canada it is said,
will Americanize the Dominion. The
Canadian Annual for 1902 says there is
no danger Of such result, and further
reports that 70 per cent of the immi-
grants from the United States have
become the natura1ized subjects of
King Edward. We may well rejoice at
the growth and prosperity Of our neigh
Dor, but in framing our tariff laws the
| interests of the United States are of
our first concern.
Reciprocity is easy in the theory but
difficult in practice. 1t takes two to
make bargain. such treaty must
| first run the gauntlet of diplomacy, af.
ter which 1t encounters the endless
chain Of debate in the American SEN
ate. Reciprocity is recognized as a
cardinal principle Of the republican
faith. The first question to be dis
cussed from the republican standpoint
| is whether the terms of a proposed
treaty are desirable.
Schedules All Important.
The question Of protection in its ope-
ration must depend wholly upon sched-
ules, whether provided for in treaty
or by law. If a tariff bill is called q
protective measure and the schedules
are SO arranged as to give inadequate
preference to our own products, 1t will
| be just as detrimental as though it
were called a free-trade measure. All
protective propositions, therefore, re-
solve. themselves down to a single
question Of schedules. 1t has often
been said that Schedules are not sa-
cred" No one has ever claimed that
they are. They are always subject to
change, and they should be changed
whenever change is necessary for
| the welfare Of the country.
| The Dingley law was enacted in the
well-grounded hope and expectation
that it would produce change. The
hoped-for change came, and has re-
NAMED for more rnan six years. If
there are to be changes in that law,
| in order to meet changed conditions,
only changes should be made which
will rebound to the retention or promo
ton Of our prosperity. But upon the
question Of tariff revision, prudence
and conservatism are of the first inn
portance.
| No material modification can be
made without at least temporarily in.
terfering with domestic production, and
therefore the republican party has
heretofore only taken up the subject of
revision in cases where the necessity
was real.
| Present Not Propitious Moment.
The heat Of a great political contest
has always disturbing influence upon
the general business Of the country.
By adding to such contest an assault
upon our Industrial system would
greatly increase the elements Of dis
turbance. Whilst many gentlemen are
agitating the policy of abandoning pro
lection in the United States, the peo-
pie of Great Britain are very seriously
discussing the propriety of abandoning
the free-trade policy and adopting a
different system. Nothing that we can
do or say will influence their action
upon this question. They will take
such course as they think will serve
their own interests. We must do the
same.
| It has been only six years since the
| farmers of Iowa, so prosperous under
protection and the gold standard, were
| laboring under very adverse circum
stances.
! Would Guard Prosperity.
They well remember their situation
at that time; and, although they might
be disposed to favor changes, they will
not grow enthusiastic over the trans
fer Of their present prosperity to Their
neighbors in Canada.
STATEMENT WAS WRONG.