The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-05-20
Ir Is srIRRINe THEM uP.

ton Of the Panama Candi sudh w bought in the cheapest market, 1t Is going to cause an epidemic of dry grins, if nothing worse, among the Re- publican brethren of protectional pro clivities. The New York Mall. for ex- ample. declares that such determine ton Is "squarely against the national policy and should be retraced without delay" It adds:
 It should be an American enterprise from beginning to end. The whole world will get the benst na, of the hr,aafn nfaso particularly it will be a great commer- cial boon. There is absolutely no rea- son why, we should make ., it an fat1en lecturers of steel and machinery at the cost of our own people.
 That is the natural argument of all who stand for a prohibitive American tariff It matters not to them that un- der our Dingley tarin American makers and manufacturers could charge the Government 25 to 50 per cent more for things needed to carry on the work than it would have to pay in foreign markets. That is no objection In the minds of those who would reap the ben- efits of enhanced prices Neither would 1t set them back any to know that the policy of buying everything at home would probably make the work cost from fifty to one hundred million dol lars more than 1t otherwise would That Is patriotism in the eyes of those protected Americans who have some thing to sell at high prices and good profits. That is their kind of Ameri- can policy.
 But The Mail makes remark with which we are disposed to agree when 1t says that there Is no reason why the Government should have the privilege of buying in the cheapest market when that privilege is refused to the citi- gen." That is true. but its application would knock Dingleyism into the great beyond. The Government ought to buy where 1t can buy cheapest and the pri- vate citizen should have the same priv ilege. but we do not expect The Mail to advocate a policy which would lead to a very material reduction of duties on most imports. The contention or that paper that American citizens should have the preference in the mak- ing of the purchase because they are paying the cost of 1t" is only good if it can buy from Americans as cheaply as 1t can from foreigners. In that case we agree that all purchases should be made at home, but we do not admit that the administration should add i'm mensely to the cost of the enterprise merely to enrich still further few highly protected American industries,
 The argument that purchases should all be made at home because Americans pay for the canal Is a one-sided one. Our own people have to pay indirectly for the work, of course but if the Gov ernment should adopt The Mails policy, not one per cent of the American people would be benefited, and they would be benefited at the expense of the oth- CT ninety nine per cent Patronizing home industries is good and patriotic policy, but we do not for that reason admit that the President must or should add very largely to the cost of building the canal It is likely to cost enough even if we buy in the cheapest markets of the world.
 The New York Times. with fine sar- casm. says:
 It cannot be denied that the action of committed in the protectionist holy Of holies. Who shall say that low prices of the ee aa not the present Secretary of the Treas ury engraved upon his phylacteries the prayer, Save me from another nn period scriptures of protection that "a cheap coat makes a cheap man?" Will not cheap canal have the same effect? Can the same fountain send forth waters both sweet and bitter? Why should we not by preference import canal sup plies into the United States. and then not ''the foreigner pay the tax" col lected at the custom m-house? It must be manifest at once that the whole .he foundations arS thus ruthlessly re- moved.
 The matter really has It's comic side too. One man who is described as "one of the highest officials of the Gov ernment," somewhat frantically ex- claims: God help us In the next cam paign, when the Socialists and the Democrats with socialistic tendencies raise the cry of Government ownership of all public utilitiesp' There sounds the cry of the partisan and the spoils- man. who is now quaking lest the Gov ernment should do something to turn the campaign contributors away from | the Republican Party, though what connection there is between the pro- posed action of the President and Gov ernment ownership we fail to see.
 Then there is General Grosvenor, who recently remarked: 'The country would rather pay a little more for something that is made at home, fur nishing employment for our workmen, and giving them better pay than their neighbors abroad" Grosvenor evil dently looked on the Republican Party as the country" and thought he was | speaking for 1t. but Roosevelt and Taft have knocked that satisfaction out of him. As for that part of the country which really will pay for the canal, we think 1t safe to say that it would pre- fer having the work done as cheaply as possible, even if that course knocks the profits from some of the tariff pro- tected industries Here at home. But The Mall-to refer to 1t again-declares very emphatically that the administra-