The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-09-07
Question for Question.

able number OF other QueStlOnS peiI1ileill
to the discussion, that may occur to you
la ter asking simply that you agree to I
answer an equal number of questions for
me.
Since thru your open letter I already 1
know some of the questions you wish me
to answer, it seems only fair that should
now indicate to you some of the questions
that I shall ask you, so that you may
have full opportunity to prepare your an
swers
Our differences cover, in general four
subjects Tariff revision, treatment Of
the trusts, the tariff on~lumber and reel
procity, especially reciprocity with Can
ada. I shall ask you questions on each
OF these subjects, which in the public in
terest I hope you will be prepared to an
swer fully, clearly and uneauivocally.
Tariff Differences.
AS to tariff revision. You announce that
you are in favor Of immediate re-
vision downward. I believe in letting
well enough alone and am standing for
stability in our tariff rates as neces-
sary condition Of continued prosperity.
AS I said in my recent speech in
congress, believe in revising the tariff
whenever it becomes evident that there
is more to be gained than lost by the
people of the United States thru such
revision. This is in exact accord with
the declaration of President Roosevelt on
this subject, made in his Minneapolis |
speech last year, when he said, These
| changes must not be made until the need
| for them OutWeighs the disadvantages
| that may result
! In other words, you bind yourself in
advance land without knowing what the
conditions may beg TO both the time
and the method of revision, while the
president and I believe in holding our
selves free to do at any time whatever
| n tho 011hic interest.
In this connection, please be ready
to tell whether or not you agree with
the time-honored contention Of the demo-
cratic party that the amount of the
duty on any article is always added to
the price Of the article, whether that
article is produced at home or abroad,
and whether or not you believe that
high rate of duty necessarily means a
high price for the article on which such
duty is laid. On your answer to this
question will depend a number Of other
questions shall want to ask you.
Remembering that for the fiscal year
, ending June 80, 1904. our present tariff
law produced only ss,956,559 more than
the current ordinary expenses Of the
government how could you have ''imme-
! date revision downward" without either
. creating a deficiency to be met by the
p issuance Of interest-bearing bonds Gas in
the Cleveland administrator or else
n inviting a large increase in the importa-
ZION Oh articles l1le llhe VI WHICH we Cali
. and should produce for ourselves, every
y dollars worth Of which would deprive
- American Workmen of a dollars worth of
q work and American farmers of several
dollars worth of home market for their
products? What assurance can you give
the people that the policy of tariff revision
g downward would not. as it did under
: Cleveland, result in all the bad results
O above suggested? 1t always has.
+ Attitude as to Trusts.
n AS to the trusts You evidently
8 agree with the democratic convention tina
/, the tariff is responsible for the "trusts,
and that therefore the duty on article:
made by trusts should be removed, or
at least, greatly reduced. I agree will
President Roosevelt that 'the question O
% the trusts must be considered wholly apar
o. from that Of the tariff "..
3, According to the census Of 1900 onl.
9. ne-eighth Of the manufactured produc
j. of the United States is trust-made, ant
in making these figures all the large in
- dustrial corporations Of recent years ar
i called trusts. Be prepared to explain
{ how you expect to be able to "strik
!. down" the trusts by a reduction of tn
duty on their products without at tn
same time striking down seven times tn
amount of American industry in the sam
lines carried on by concerns that are no
trusts. And be prepared to show hoy
such a result Of striking bltndly at tn
trusts would be helpful to the America
people including those Of the second dis
trict. ~
s'Free Lumber
AS to "free lumber" You are promis
ing the people or at least they think tina
you are promising, that if you should
elected to congress you would secure tn
removal of the 81 a thousand duty o
lumber. decline to make any sue
promise.
Even if you should secure the remov:
of the entire duty on lumber what as
surance can you give the people that tn
h Canadian government would not at ono
put upon lumber an export duty exact
equal to the duty removed by our govern
ment? You will remember that Canac
did that the last time we reduced tt
duty on lumber How do you know tn:
she would not do it again? In 9th
words, what assurance can you give tt
people that if our duty on lumber we
removed there would be any other resu
except that the money now going in
Uncle Sans treasury as revenue on tt
lumber imported from Canada into &c
tain eastern cities would be diverted in
the Cana dian treasury? 81
But do you really believe that "
could keep your promise to secure Il