New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-21
SENATOR BRANDEGEE'S PALACES.

/ SENATOR BRAADEGEE'S FALLACIBS.
We publish to-day in another column a criticism
Of the attitude taken on the Payne Philippine
bill by Senators Buckley and Brandegee which
should prove interesting reading, both inside and
outside the State of Connecticut Mr.. Bran
degee's defence of his vote In the Philippines
Committee as we pointed out last Monday, was
hardly more creditable than that vote itself, and
well informed critics can have little difficulty in
demonstrating not only that he has assumed
untenable positions in attacking the Payne bill,
but that he really mistakes the sentiment OF the
constituency he represents. The people of Con
necticut are too intelligent to be imposed upon
by the plea that the tobacco interest will be
ruined by the admission into the United States
OF the relatively meagre and uninviting Philip
pine product. They know that the agitation
which the two Senators have taken so seriously
is only an echo of the tumult raised when Porto
Rican tobacco was allowed to come in free and
when the duty on Cuban tobacco was cut to so
per cent Of the Dingey rate. Connecticut out
lived those two strenuousIy advertised but never
realized calamities. Within a year after the
passage Of the Payne bill it will also have for
gotten all the unfuflled prophecies Of the alarm
lists who profess to see the future Of the Amer
ican tobacco industry darkened by the all con-
Quering Manila cherOOt
We have more than once exposed the hollow
ness Of the argument that the importation Of
Philippine sugar can under present conditions
affect the price of sugar here That price must
be fixed by sugars paying 100 per cent OF the
Dingley rate Of duty, and when such sugars can
no longer be delivered here at a profit 1t Will be
fixed by the Cuban sugars paying so per cent
The domestic sugar producer has no more to fear
from the competition Of the Filipino producer
than he has to fear from the competition Of the
sugar grower Of Porto Rico or Hawaii. In the case
Of tobacco the same reasoning holds good. The
limited quantity of cigars which the Filipinos
could send US would never be a disturbing factor
in our enormous tobacco trade. 1t is amusing
TO find Mr.. Brandegee raising the cry of COM
petition with Oriental labor" The only ORR
entail who can do or Will dc the work required to
produce good tobacco in the Philippines is the
Chinaman, and under our laws the Chinese
laborer is excluded not only from the mainland
but from all our insular possessions as well. In
efficiency the Malay, disturbing to Mr.. Bran
degees Imagination, cannot compare with the
American labOrer, even at the present unequal
scale of cost.
The junior Senator from Connecticut an
nOunces that he cannot see any moral ques-
"tiOn any question of good faith of
government involved in this Proposition
that is relief to the FilipinOs through tariff
reduction. In this he claims to be exhibit
ing plain business sense, undisturbed by the
sentimental philanthropy winch actuateS
the President and Secretary Taft If it be
true however, that as a member of the House
Mr.. Brandegee not only voted to extend our
coastwise shipping laws to commerce with the
Philippines, but also voted to make that extern
sion effective On July l, 1905, instead Of July l,
1909, we do not understand how he can so con-
hdently put aside this question Of moral senh-
ment and national good faith. To extend the
coastwise laws to Philippine trade was to give
that trade domestic character We are to com
pei the FilipinOs to send us their products in
American vessels, at a largely increased cost in
freight 1t is neither logical nor honest after
making them pay the penalties of a status forced
On them, TO deprive them Of the compensatory
benefits of that status. If no moral question is
involved in such a programme then injustice is
equity and narrow minded juggling with tech
nicaties is fair play.