Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-09-17
Minis should say something like this:

minis should say something like this:
Republicans. both standpatters and
revisionists. believe that protective tar
ifs are laid on those things which we
| do or can produce In order to stimulate
and foster their production in our own
tcountry. They are so laid with the
| express design Of preventing the free
and unlimited competition of the pros
ducers of the world in our markets.
They are so laid believing that the
Icompetition among our own producers
| will hold our production to fair
! American price, and that we can better
afford to pay the fair American price
than we can afford to have our mar
kets monopolized by foreign produc-
tions. The end sought by the protec-
| tive system Of duties Is to supply, 50
far as possible, every need of our own
people with their own work.
| Upon the other hand a tariff for rev.
| enue is a system Of duties SO adjusted
| as to occasion the least possible inter-
ference with free commerce, and re-
strict as little as possible the free
| competition of the world in our mar
| kets. It is a system which primarily
| lays it's duties upon those things which
We do not and can not produce
l have spoken often upon the diff
ferent phases of this subject in the last
few years. but never without the most
careful reflection. have said nothing
that | desire to retract In a speech at
Minneapolis l said: The consumer is
better entitled to competition than the
producer to protection. l believed
I
do not believe that any producer who
successfully maintains monopoly is
entitled to the advantages of a protec
tive duty. say that when a monopoly
lis established, there is one producer,
and that all who use or buy the prod
uct of his monopoly are consumers;
and repeat that these consumers have
a higher and better right to compe-
tition in that article than the single
producer has to an import duty upon
it. This position is not only consistent
with the deepest devotion to the policy
of protection, but II is the logical Sc
quence of the argument for protection,
for the ohvioups reason that one Of the
conditions. which protection is intended
to create is competition between the
producers of the article protected in
the country which levies the duty.
When it is proposed TO levy pro-
tective duty upon anything that may
be imported, the question at once
arises. What duty shall be laid upon
it?' Absolutely all protectionsts agree
upon the criterion. 1t should be such
duty as will enable the home pro-
ducers of the article to make and sell it
in the dom markets at a fair
profit.
Personally, I have no hesitation in
avowing that there are dutiea which
should be lowered to bring them to the
point of protection and that it should
be done now. this winter. There are
others, undoubtedly, who believe that
the duties as whole are as fairly ads
justed as they can be- We may differ,
we do differ, respecting the details of
application. Judge Smith may agree
with me as to the schedules in need OF
a change and disagree as to whether
the work Of revision should be at
tempted at the coming session or
subsequent one. Major Rathbun may
insist that no revision should be at
tempted at all. We are all republic
cans. But when the policy itself is
LII GdlSAlSu, ~ yDeCOHeS every man VINO
approves it, whether he be republican
or dem crat, whether he is for revis-
ion or against revision, to lift his voice
i'll its defense and cast his vote for its
safety.
The above speech has not been writ
ten for the eloquent governor by the
Times Republican at his request, to be
sure. but suppose Ae should say some-
thing like this, we. ask Major Rath-
bun would he trail his colors In the
dirt? and we submit to the Nonpareil |
would he in any way violate the spirit
Of the Iowa platform which his friends
wrote, or would he deny any of the
precepts of the national campaign
book? Give us your answer