Omaha daily bee., 1908-08-22
bryan ON THE rARlFF QUESTION.

country almost from the birth Of the
republic. Il is a question leaving
room for honest difference Of opinion
and on which much can be said IN
both sides. We believe that even the
most partisan democrat, who has given
the subject careful study, will find
Mr.. Bryan's latest tariff speech halt,
lame and blind. Instead Of elucidat-
ing the opposing attitudes of the two
great political parties in their tariff
planks, he simply adds confusion and
invites criticism of his own views.
In the first place. while essentially
a free trader, Mr.. Bryan tries to dis
gulse himself as the advocate of tariff
reform" and as proposing a tariff
for revenue in order not to antago-
nize the American working man, who
has time and again rejected free trade.
Notwithstanding his efforts 10 ove
up his free trade ideas, they slip
through here and there. In one place,
for example, he says:
As a tariff law interferes with the natural
laws Of trade. one who proposes a protec-
tive tariff takes upon himself the burden
OF proof to show. etc.
OF course, IL a tariff law Inter
feres with the natural laws of trade
II can make no difference what kind of
a tariff law it may be, and the same
burden of proof would rest upon the
advocate of a revenue tariff as upon
the advocate of. a protective tariff.
Mr.. Bryan's idea is that free trade is
the edict of natural law and that the
least possible interference with trade
is evidence of the best government.
His ideal is free trade and his revenue
tariff merely a halfway station.
Mr.. Bryan distinguishes between the
positions Of the two great parties on
the subject OF the tariff as follows:
The democratic party regards a tariff
law as a revenue law, the protection 1t
gives being incidental; the republican
party regards the tariff law as formed
primarily for protection the revenue being
incidental.
Accepting this definition for the
sake of argument, where does it leave
Mr.. Bryan and his party? Only four
years ago in their national platform
the democrats declared, I'VE de-
nounce protection as a robbery of the
man. to enrich the few"
II protection is robbery, it is rob-
berry no matter whether much or lit
tie is stolen, and Mr., Bryan's tariff
for e with incidental protection"
would be at best petit larceny instead
of grand larceny. The overwhelming
reputation of the democratic candi-
date and platform in 1904 registered
the refusal of the people to believe
that a tariff for protection Is robbery,
and the people surely do not regard
II as robbery now any more than they
did four years ago.
The reference to putting wood pulp
and lumber on the free list declares
it absurd" to complain of the exhaus
ton of our forests while we encourage
their destruction by a tariff on prod
ucts OF, foreign forests. Why is it not
equally absurd TO try to save our for
ests by eating up the forests of other
nations who have Just as much right
To want to conserve their forests as
we have to conserve ours? There may
be good reasons for reducing or abol-
ishing the wood pulp duties, but hardly
the selfish desire to better ourselves
at the expense Of our neighbors.
In another place Mr.. Bryan under
takes to deny that wages are higher
here than abroad and that the wage
worker will be injured by free COM
petition with l~ow-priced foreign labor
Every trades union in the country is
built up on the principle OF mutual
protection and the same principle OF
protection again bushwhacking COM
petition at home applies to protection
against the low wages of foreign
laborers forced to be content with a
much inferior standard of living. NO
amount of argument will convince the
American laborer hat he is not better
off than the VI "oSO"NiAS
and entitled to the benefit of a pro-
tective tariff t help him maintain his
superiority.
The worst part of Mr.. Bryan's tariff
program lice in his proposal to reduce
the tariff schedule, gradually and by
degrees. II a man is to have his leg
amputated he may console himself by
knowing that 1t will soon be over but
II the surgeon proposes to cut it off
an inch at a time, once a month he
would rightfully despair. Mr.. Bryan
proposes to put the industries Of the
country on the operating table and
subject them to a surgical amputation
every few months. That the patient
would never get we'll under this treat
ment needs no demonstration.
All through his speech Mr., Bryan is
equally unfortunate. He emphasizes
the necessity OF democrats securing
control of both house and senate and