The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1906-03-29

ton and the other for exports. There
is scarcely manufactured article in
all Europe that cannot be purchased
from ten to twenty-five percent cheap
er for export to the United States
than for domestic consumption. George
Parish, editor of the London Statist,
perhaps the greatest economic journal
in Europe, was my guest at Dewitt
i'll the fall of 1904. l had introduced
him to the audience, and he sat on my
platform. In the course of the dis
cussion, referring to this subject, l
stated that every European govern
ment except England encourages the
sale of merchandise abroad cheaper
than at home, and added that l was
not certain as to the attitude of Eng
land, and referred the question to Mr..
Parish. Promptly he replied, ENG
land does not encourage it, but our
people practice it.. !" Americans
alone complain that goods are
sometimes sold abroad cheaper than
at home.
No American manufacturer could
live if the tariff only measured the
actual difference in the cost of produce
ton. The only time the Republican
party ever promised tina, tariff duties
should only equal the difference be-
tween wages abroad and at home was
in the platform of 1892. This appar-
emily was an attempted compromise,
through unsuccessful, for the party
was defeated, not withstanding, in
New York. New Jersey, Connecticut,
Illinois, Wisconsin, half of Michigan,
and Indiana, the home Of General
Harrison. The platform failed of a
majority even in Iowa, the only time
since the party was organized. We
gave Harrison in 1892 a plurality only.
The last mentioned National Republi-
can platform, without suggesting read
justment of existing schedules, says
that tariff duties should at least equal
the difference in cost of production.
Unless they exceed this difference
they fail, as we have seen, to pro-
tect.
This unrest and dissatisfaction to
which have referred led Congress, in
the spring of 1881, to appoint COM
mission to investigate the whole sub
ject and make report. The COM
mission spent months in hearing evil
dence, and prepared new schedules in
which it was sought to work out an
average reduction of twenty per cent
and in doing this the differential in
the cost of production of each article
in this country and Europe was care
fully considered. Congress wisely re-
jected the report, though it amended
the tariff by an act approved March
3, 1888. Twenty months from that
date Mr.. Cleveland was elected Presi-
dent, with House Democratic by 80
majority.
This result was as logical and as
certain as the movement of the tides.
No party can amend the tariff down
ward on the eve of an election and
live. Tom Reed used to say, can
unmade tariff laws suit every dee
strict. He might have added that
an accomplished tariff reduction suits
no district. The lamented John Hay,
having been a student of political
events from the days when he was
Secretary to President Lincoln, said
three years ago, cit must needs be
that tariff revisions come, but woe
to that party by which they come. -
No party can ever revise the tariff in
safety, and the only time to risk the
experiment is at an extraordinary ses-
sion Immediately following the in
auguration of new administration.
The reason is well-nigh self-evi-
dent. Every man knows, or thinks he
knows, of three or four changes which
are all important. Failing to get all
of them, he is angry, and if there be
one change made which he does not
approve. he is outraged. He gives
no credit for preserving the general
principle of protection; he gives, no
credit for preserving most of the
schedules in which he is interested;
he gives no credit for the few changes
that are made which he thinks neces-
sary. These he has right to expect,
for they are just, but the change
which he thinks should be made that
is not made, and especially tn. change
which he thinks ought not to be made
that is made, sends him to the polls
prepared to hit something, and the
party in power is the only thing in
sight.
Does any one for moment suppose
the American people had more conf
dence in the opposition party in 1884
than in the then majority party?
Certainly it was not the personality
of Cleveland as against the personal
ity OF Blame that won the victory.
No, it was the microbe of discomfort
\