The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-10-04

1900.
,yrn the coal fields Of Pennsylvania need
1e1p at the expense Of every man. woman II
Ind child ia TIE limited States2 II you
lad a deed tor those fields in Pennsyl- IL
tania5 would You have the nerve to- ASK rs
he United States government to pass 81!
aw which would prohibit the importation 81
81 coal from Nova Scotia that you might
States more for your coal? II the people
In; Pennsylvania would offer to- give you
4, warranty deed of those hard coal fields
would you refuse ITO accept 1t as gift
unless the United States governm emit
would continue the law which prohibits
the Importation OF coal from elsewhere at
the natural price? 5
Il * - Protected Lumber. ~
Lumber has, ever been upon the tariff
schedule. Would you refuse to take a
deed as gift Of a large lot OF fine pine
timber land situated in northern Wlscon-
sin, Michigan or Minnesota unless the
United States government would continue
a tariff Of 81 a thousand to prohlb1t the
importation Of lumber from Canada or
elsewhere? Would you not accept deco
as a gift Of all the iron mines In the |
=
of the billion-dollar steel trust unless the
United States government would agree to
continue to maintain the tariff upon steel.
Would you refuse to accept a deed, as
a gift, from the Standard Oil company
Of the land containing all Of its OIL wells,
unless the United States government
would agree to maintain its present tarl1L
upon the importation of oil? Great
heavens! the asking of these questions
fills me with rage that robs< me OF my
reason for the time.
There is at this time, in this commu-
nifty, a; sentiment in favor OF the revision
of the tariff. Let me remind all OF the
good people of this congressional dlstrlc1
that revision would constitute an IN
sufficient, if not an Intellectual remedy
for unjust conditions of which we all,
including republicans, in +. this locality
complain. If we are to continue to ralse
a billion dollars a year to. support Inc
United States government and we are
and not only that, but an ever increasing
amount, then the burden or the tarl1I
cannot be so shifted that we will be re-
lieved from it; and if we shift the bur-
den of a few things that fall heavily upon
us in this locality, it will bear more heaV-
! lily on others in other localities. II we
fight to reduce the tariff upon certain
|
terested, we must at the same time fight
T. to increase it upon things in which peo-
pie in other localities are particularly IN
terested An attempt to revise the tariff
will be but a fight between localities. 1t
is, you see, as the great democrat, Han
cock, declared soon after the war, "a
local ISSUE"
How to Get Relief.
| :. I am going to say what L know to be
true and T wish that all the voters in
this district could hear it: That in order
to. ever get any substantial relief from
the unjust burdens of the present tariff
law. we must get it not by simply re-
wishing the tariff, not by simply lifting the
burden from some articles and putting ii
upon others, but by lifting it from some
articles without putting it upon others
; We must take it off from some article
. and not increase it upon. others anc
thereby incur the hostility Of others II
-other localities; and if when we have
taken it off from some of them, If W.
get insufficient revenue to maintain ou
: government then we must collect ou
deficiency in revenue by some other sys
, TEN of taxation, by amending the consti
$ tuition of the United States, and levyin
!, a tax upon incomes, Or by apportionini
a certain amount Of tax among tn
: states. according to the population, a
Q the constitution of the United States a
Z present permits, or by amending the con
stitution of the United States and levy
e ing tax directly upon the property in
q terests of this country.
= II am not so visionary or ignorant as
:: believe that any speedy relief can be oh
q tanned. Upon the contrary I do kno1
e that the process of relieving ourselves {
| of tor; ic
e process. Any changes to be. made mus
II be gradual and SLOW and of necesslt
It will be, gradual and slow; but I promis
e the people of this congressional d1stri'
Ii that if perchance I shall be elected
IS congress, shall work for; the reductie
e : of the tariff upon the articles in the COZ
Ii sumption Of which the people Of this pa
e ticular locality are especially intereste
IS shall do all within my power towart
y the reduction Of the: tariff upon lumbe
e coal, steel and OIL Il shall do all with
st my power towards destroying the ba
Is riers which now exist between this mort
western country and Canada, and to or
ate such a condition Of things that Il
i. manufacturers of this community and tt
Mt wholesalers Of this community can
ID into Canada and sell the things WIFI
Y, they desire to sell to the people the
is living who desire to buy the things viii
at we desire to sell; and if. while am
le congress, any revision Of the tariff Is a
st tempted, and it results in the ~scramt
D. between localities, I promise that I "
I'd protect my, constituency, having the
he tespecial interests in view, to the wht
e Eextent of my ability, for shall regard
of Ethat while + have duty towards all t
tn people Of the United States to perfoI
n my first and especial duty is to represe
nv the people Of this locality.
~ ~ ~. Justice for All.
at Mr.. Larrabee declared that he wou
OF be the advocate Of neither the railroa
nd nor the shippers if he were in congre
ks On the subject of railroad rates he SO
tn that he believes that the only basis
an ates is fair and reasonable profit
p what would be the cost of reproduce
ry the railroad properties. He would
he pose measures that would deprive
Or, companies of their just recompense j
in as strenuously as he would resist
re- attempt Of the railroads and tn
Die friends in congress to make shipp
n pay more for service than would
* just and reasonable. However,
on speaker hardly thought the quest
mis- would come up in the next congress.
x: In view Of the fact that the MOI
= question will probably not be up
discussion or adjustment within
ar. next two years, Mr.. Larrabee did
he waste time in discussing it. He
lar marked, however, that he believed Il
Ms if the "16 to / " doctrine had prevail
M as late as 1896 it would have hel,