Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-07-01
WHY NOT?

|
| AT the opening Of the present tariff
| discussion The Register and Leader
offered the modest suggestion that
tie tariff reform really in demand IS
the vtalizing Of the Dngley law In
rnother column we publish a letter
| from a prominent citizen of Nebraska.
Low at the national capital. in which
with great clearness he shows how
the threatened trade war with Ger
many could be averted by this simple
and justtiable resort.
Why should not the Dingey law be
enforced in the spirit In which 1t was
understood by the American people
to be enacted? The trainers of the
law provided for minimum of 20 per
cent below the existing tariff rates
to be granted to nations, making cor
responding reductions at the entrance
to their own markets. 1t is idle to
| assert that they did not mean It,
The country believed they meant 1t,
and President Mckinley believed they
meant 1t. aud Mr.. Kasson and the
men who negotiated the trade treaties
believed they meant it. There was
never any question that republicans
were committed to a reciprocity poll
icy until in the senate ii became APP
patent that u few special interests
could defeat the ratification OF the
treaties and then, to cover their own
tracks, began to have II noised abroad
that the policy would not work and
that the trainers of the law never in
tended that 1t should work
The trainers of the Dingley law de-
liberately declared the existing rates
to be the maximum. and in many in
stances deliberately arranged that
they should be high enough to stand
par,ng without any marked incon-
venience to anybody The industries
affected knew that the rates were to
be considered as maximum. For no
one will ever make the American peo-
pie believe that VIM. Mckinley had
any part in grand game of decep-
ton, or that he had any other idea
thar that at the earliest possible mo-
ment arrangements would be made
with all friendly nations for the ia
vored admission of their goods. So
long as President Mckinley is known
to have acted in good faith. why
should it be assumed that the trainers
of the bill, Ulen like Nelson Ding
ley. Senator Doliver and the rest,
acted in bad faith. that they did
not anticipate that there would be
substantial recognition of reciprocity
under the section in which they had
expressly provided for it?
All the tariff reform that is needed
now. or that will be needed for the
next twenty years, can be secured by
merely giving life to the provisions
Of the present law. And the way to
90 that is to add one sentence from
that equally standard tariff measure,
the Mckinley law, to It, That
one sentence is the one in which
ii is provided that trade arrangements
may be made by the president and
His advisers under the general terms
of the law as fixed by congress- If
congress will made this addition to
the present law and permit the ex-
ccutive department to go out into the
markets of the world with lee way
OF 20 per cent of the present tariff
as a minimum, every schedule that
needs overhaulirg will be overhauled,
every tariff war that threatens will
10 averted. and every channel that
can be opened proiitably for the Amer
lean surplus will be made available
Why should it not be done? The
Mckinley law and the Dingley law
were enacted in good faith by the
le aGers of the republican party. They
were enacted by men whose adher
el.cc to the republican idea OF the
tariff was unquestioned. They Were
enacted by men who would no more
open the American market to the
foreign producer at the expense OF
the home producer than they would
cut off their right hands. Why should
not the provisions of the laws they
considered sufficient. be given fair
trial now that a condition of things
is arising which 1t was the very pur-
pose OF their foresight to ward
against?
When Other Medicines Have Failed.
Take Foley's Kidney Cure. 1t has cur