New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-05-19
BY AL MEANS .srAND PATTI

| The President and the Secretary Of War are
the real "stand-patters," IN the true and logical
| sense Of the term 1t Is they who are seeking
| to maintain the existing order Of things, while
| it is their critics and the opponents of their
policy who are trying to make changes. The
President and the Secretary recognize the per-
| fectly well known fact that-in common with
other countries, especially with Great Britain
the United States has two scales Of prices for
| many of its manufactured goods, under which
| system American manufacturers sell their
wares in the foreign market at q much lower
| price than in the domestic market The Ques-
ton Of the propriety Of that system need not
! be discussed here. British manufacturers and
| political economists defend it as right and
| necessary What the President and Secretary Of
| War think Of it is not now in question But it is
obvious that they think, and that they are quite
| right in thinking that so long as that practice
prevails IT should be consistently maintained,
| and American manufacturers should be content
| to sell in foreign markets st their foreign mar
ket prices, and should demand their domestic
prices only in the domestic market.
The Panama market is a foreign market.
Panama is foreign country 1t has never been,
is not, and probably never will be a part OF the
United States. 1t is true that the United States
has for certain purpose, control Of a small
portion Of it. The Republic Of Panama" says
petuity the use, occupation and control Of zone
"of land" etc But the titular sovereignty re-
mains forever with Panama The pretence,
which some so-called 'stand-patters' have put
forth, that the zone Is part of the United
States to which the Constitution automati-
cay applies, pgoprio pigore is untenable.
The United States is occupying that territory
under a concession from It's sovereign, Just as
an American individual or corporation might
China under a concession from the Chinese
government. Does anybody pretend that In the
latter case the holder of the concession would
be under any legal, moral logical obligation
to regard that tract as American territory and
TO purchase all supplies for it in the American
market? He, it, would be doing business in
a foreign land, and would be free TO patronize
a foreign market, without any disloyalty to the
American tariff system. So has this govern
ment the same privilege when it undertakes a
work in a foreign land, as it is doing at
Panama.
The policy of the President and Secretary Is
that our manufacturers shall stand pat' in the
business that they have been engaged in for
years. We have already called attention to the
fact that hitherto American manufacturers have
been able to sell large quantities of goods in
Panama without the protection Of the Ameri-
can tariff, in free competition with foreign
rivals. We may go further and say that in
those lines Of goods which will be chiefly re-
| Quired for canal purposes Americans have had a
practical monopoly Of that market. Note what
the official review Of our commercial relations
with Colombia said In 1908, the year before
the independence Of Panama was established.
It specifically declared that Colombia's supplies
Of -four, COAL machinery and tools, engines,
ironware boots and shoes, kerosene oils, soap
tobacco, wood and manufactures Of 1t, lard, and
provisions, came chiefly from the United States.
It did not mention any of these things as com
ing from Great Britain or France our only i'm
portant competitors. Again, according to the
same authority, in 1902 two-thirds Of the hard
ware received at Colon came from the United
States. Other statistics TO the same end might
be cited, indefinitely. There can be no Ques-
ton that before our government secured its con-
cesson at Panama our manufacturers were
doing large and increasing trade with that
country, at a satisfactory rate of profit.
By all means let us stand pat! Why not2
What has happened in the last year or two to
make necessary a change? If we could sell goods
in Panama in 1903 at the foreign market rate,
why can we not do so in 1905? II our merchants
were then not only content but eager to do
business there with a foreign country, why
not now2 1t costs them no more to get their
goods to Panama. The competition Of France
and England is more keen. There is no
perceptble or conceivable reason why they
should not stand pat" the President wants
them to- and continue to do business there as
they have been doing 1t. The question Of
patriotism has been raised, and we are told that
because this is an American enterprise only
American materials should be used We are
free to say that we cannot sympathize with the
''patriotism" Of those who would now demand
as a right the opportunity to charge their own
government more than they have been glad TO
receive hitherto from foreigners. Upon the
point Of patriotism, as we'll as that Of logic and
of sound business economy, the policy adopted
by the President and his Secretary Of War
seems to US unimpeachable, and we believe that
upon 1t the nation will be glad to see them
stand patti