The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-09-12

Z There is little for me to- add to this. tt
is but ten years since the last attempt
isai e efssst ss pe l9Ts f5 tas
pering too much. The tempt was en-,
stirely successful. The tat9 Law Of that
{ that year and for some time afterwards
peri1s TOO nhsh. and issk rom rom 1;fos
possible at the present ffSe Ao prevent Mt
any of*the trusts from remaining pros
porous by the simple expedient of making
to parayHe the industries Of the t cnntr a
The trusts would cease to prosper: but
their smaller competitors would be ruined,
and a The wage workers would while
produce: to market. The MYils; connected
with the trusts can be I'D only ~by
rational r: effort, step by step along the
tive during the past tfirse Years. If a.
tariff law. is passed under which the coun-
try prospers, as the country has pros
pered under the present tariff law then
all classes will sharesin the prosperity.
If tariff iawssis passed aimed at pre-
venting the prosperity of some of our.
be: that this aim win bg achieved only by
people. -
OF course, if our opponents are NOT
sincere in their proposal to abolish the
system of a protective tariff there is
no use In arguing the matter at all, save
ny p0IifllHS OUT again LA t7lfxQQz0Q9 great
issue they do not mean what they say,
1T is hardly safe trust them on aalys
other issue But if they are sincere in
w ynln dmad1erfe her =; aowsnt
cry as widespread and far Reaching as
that which we saw ten Years ago When
they speak OF projections robbery
moral sto-enaet- a tariff designed Gas lis
tie present protective tariff) to secure
TO the American wage worker. the bene-
q Crh OF 1Gear6 rnf
we desire to see kept up in this country
Now to speak of the tariff in this sense
a.. robbery, thereby, giving it a moral
on its face false. The question of what
tariff is best for our people is primarily
one Of expediency. TO be determined not
of business; for fundamentally d9fs is
q business people-manufacturers mer-.
chants, farmers, wage-earners, profes-
sional men, all alike. Our experiences as
a people in the past has certainly not
shown us that We could afford in this
matte. to follow those professional coun-
study in the closet; for the actual work
Ing of the tariff has enlpha tically con-
tradlcted their theories s, From time to
tlme schedules must undoubtedly be ar
ranged and readjudsted to meet the Shift
ing needs of the country bit this can
with safety be done only by those who are
committed to the cause of the protective
system To uproot and destroy that sys-
tenn would be to insure. the ,pnostration of
business, the closing of factories, the I'M
poYerishment of the farmer, sothe ruin of
the capitalist. and the starvation of the
wage worker. Yet, If protection is indeed
,ropbery, and If our: opponents really
pelleve what they say then. it is. pre-
ciseiy to- the destruction and uprooting
OF the tariff, and therefore Of ollr business
and INDUSTRY that they are pledged. When
on; platform declaring A;protective tar
I'M uneonstitutional;" and the effort to
Of the causes of the general national prosg
tration lasting from 1888 to 1897. If a
protective tariff is either tuh6onstitutfofis
aIf-or robbery" then tits Just as un-.
constitutional, just as much robbery to
revise 1t down, still leaving it protective,
as It would be. to enact it, In other
words our opponents have committed
themselves to the destruction of the pro-
,tectlve principle in the tariff, using words
which # honestly used forbid them from
permitting this principle to- obtain in
even the smallest degree. -