New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-19
TARIFF REVISION.

Secretary Shaw's recent speech at Springfield
Mass, has been widely quoted and gratefully
applauded by the free trade press because Of
its admission that undoubtedly the American
people in the swing of years would be pros
porous were this n free trade country Yet
even coming from an ardent and radical Pro
tectionist like Mr. Shaw there is nothing
startling in such a statement. The Secretary
realizes that the protective policy which we
have followed more less steadily for hun
dred years has done It's work so we'll that our
Industrial fabric would probably stand even IL
we admitted free foreign competition in our
market. The nation has rounded out and de-
veOped, and we have accumulated resources
in capital, labor and material which permit VA
10 view foreign rivalry with certain degree
Of equanmity. But that need not affect Mr.
Shaws conviction and the conviction of large
majority OF the American people that the pro-
tectlve principle has contributed enormously TO
our growth and welfare and should be aban-
dOned only after satisfactory demonstration that
It's work has been really accomplished.
The point which Secretary Shaw was seek
ing 10 push home at Springfield deserves more
attention than his passing admission. He was
arguing for clarity Of thought I'm dealing with
the question Of tariff revision II we revise the
tariff. he said, should revise II in conform
ity with a definite theory not by haphaZard
IL
either from the prOtectOnist or the free trade
point Of view, and in a national not a sectional
or provincial, spirit. Unfortunately much of the
agitation for tariff revision now rife in Mas
sachusetts is conducted In the provincial spirit.
Massachusetts is inclined TO At its theory OF
revision to local needs and interests It wants
free coal, free hides and free wool but can see
no merit In the free entry of manufa ctlIres
But other sections Of the country, which pro-
! 4,
developed manufactures. cannot understand
why protection should be surrendered on one
class of articles and not on another Secretary
Shaw said:
II Massachusetts is to have protection for
her manufactures then 1 insist that Florida,
shall have protection for her citrus fruits Lou
siana for her sugar. Texas for her cattle Mon
tana for her wool and Dakota for her wheat
.. Protection in spots and free trade in
spots is the most vicious political heresy known
to man, and resolves all economic legislation into
a squabble for local advantage.
The history of the Wilson German Tariff law
furnishes ample warnings on this point. The
trainers of that measure did not know their
own minds and We're afraid to apply frankly
either the free trade the protective principle
In the House of Representatives they fell back
on the free raw materials theory and made coal
iron ore sugar hides and various other specially
selected articles free But in the Senate they
were forced TO throw this makeshift in logic to
| the Winds and a squabble for local advantage
ensued in which each state and each section
took what 1t could regardless of logic or theory.
! We want no repetition in tariff making of
that free-for-all struggle for special favors The
Dingley tariff undoubtedly needs revision, aud
revision, while not practicable Immediately
should not be long delayed. But it needs the
sort Of revision which will consider the economic
needs of the country as a whole, which will dis
pense with protection where 1t has become super
fuous and will retain it where It still fulfils a
broadly national purpose.