The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1906-07-13
Is NOT SECTIONAL.
TARTFF QUESTION AN ISSUE
FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY.
No Single State or Group of States
Can Secure Alterations of Exist
ing Schedules TO Suit Special
Interests.

II is indeed fortunate, as Secretary
Shaw remarked in his speech before
The South Dakota Republican state
convention of June 6, that no one state
can revise the tariff. 1t is equally true
that no group of states, nc section, has
the power to frame the schedules to
suit special interests. The agricultural
states, although holding the balance of
power, have never attempted to adjust
tariff rates TO suit the requirements of
agriculture alone. This fact is to their
everlasting credit. The only state, we
believe, that has eyer cherished the de-
lusive desire to dictate tariff legisla-
ton in her own especial interest, and
has manifested a belief that it might
possibly be done, is one whose govern
or butted into national affairs with d
letter notifying the president Of the
United States that unless congress re-
moved the duty on hides Massachusetts
would certainly go Democratic! Yet
the duty on hides remains. AS to the
fulfllment Of the threat, that remains
to be seen.
The danger of one state or one sec
ton undertaking to regulate tariff
schedules was well wrought III by Sec
rotary Shaw when he said:
Il desire TO throw out a note of
warning to my friends in the agricul-
tural states. Keep this in mind, that
there are several times as many peo-
pie demanding cheaper food as there
are people demanding a reduction of
the tariff on any manufactured article.
Let no man hug his W soul with the
delusion that any one state can revise
the tariff in the interest of that state
only. There are localities willing to
sacrifice every suggestion of protection
which the Dingley law affords Dakota,
in the open and avowed hope that by
SO doing additional markets may be
obtained for their own products. 1t Is
fortunate, therefore, that no one state
can revise the tariff"
1t is fortunate for South Dakota, for
example, that Massachusetts is unable
to revise the tariff off the hides of
South Dakota's cattle or bring about a
condition of free trade in the agricul-
tural products of Canada.
1t is also fortunate for protection as
a permanent policy that South Dakota
has not the power to remove the tariff
on lumber. Such a discrimination
against an important industry would
surely check and perhaps wholly OBJ
l~iterato the rapidly growing protection
sentiment in the southern states, which
are now the chief source of lumber
supply east of the Rocky mountains.
Memphis is the leading lumber market
of the United States, and in sections
where free trade formerly had its cita-
del protection is now becoming more
too. there are the lumber producing
states of the Pacific coast, which value
highly the protective tariff of two dol
lars per thousand feet, which gives
them the home market against the
competition of cheaper lumber from
across the border of British Columbia.
II it is desired t. hold these states in
the protection column the tariff on
lumber had best not be removed. South
Dakota may, in the language of one oil
John Hays poetical heroes,
''Resoloot till the cows come home
on the removal Of the tariff on lumber
just as Massachusetts may threaten
direful things ii she is denied free
trade in Canada's competitive products
of farm, forest and mine, but the leve
protectionist of the country as {
whole will keep protection intact fol
the country as a whole.