Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-01-14
Staudpatism Revived.


Standpatism. which had disappeared
from popular discussion, has reappeared.
and in surprising quarter. The New
York Herald, for years low tariff jour-
nal, revives the cry of 'let well enough
alone" and supports it by quoting from
q firm of New York importers as to pres
ent business conditions and prospects.
This firm, in trade circular signed by
its president, says:
I'VE should expect excellent results for
the opening season if no change in tariff
were imminent. A low tariff would stlm-
uIate the inportations of our company
and would probably increase our profits
on such additional merchandise as could
then be safely imported, but this gain
might be more than counterbalanced by
the hating of industry which would be
likely to follow radical reduction In the
rates Of import"
And yet this firm comedies that for six
months past business conditions have
greatly improved. In all that time tariff
revision has been imminent. Judge Taft's
election was foreshadowed several months
before election day, and the platform
upon which he was standing was known
of all. Since election day the time for
tariff revision has been fixed. Why, then,
If business has been improving in the face
of this. should 1t suddenly halt now?
The Herald, in support of this circular,
says:
When protection to national industries
shall have been removed by demolition of
the tariff WALL what Will become of the
capital-a huge sum in the aggregate
now invested in small enterprises? Will
the trusts, which alone can profit by the
removal of the duties. have the justice to
reimburse the ruined investors and manu-
facturers? There is not much likelihood
OF THAR
This is the old charge that revision
means free trade; that it Is a direct
thrust at protection. That contention
cannot be sustained. The movement is
not against protection, but it's abuses.
Protection receives its greatest injuries
from unworthy applications. When the
policy is contributing to the general
welfare-as 1t is in many cases-it is
not to be disturbed. Where 1t has be-
come a mere bounty to individuals it is
to be removed, as Mr.. Mckinley rec
commended at Buffalo eight years ago.
In a measure repeating itself, the
Herald proceeds:
And what about the countless persons
dependent upon our national Industries
for the support of themselves, their
wives and children? Will the trusts
uuUeTldhe 10 nnO employment at OnrC-
duced wages for the hundreds Of thou
sands who will be thrown out of work
by the abandonment Of the protective
principle? That is an impossibility!'
The same answer applies to this.
The protective principle is not to be
abandoned. All that is contemplated
or necessary relates to readjustment A
tariff law enacted twelve years ago at
q period Of great depression is now to
be revised to meet conditions after
twelve years of great buoyancy. That
10 all.
What unparalleled good fortune 1t
would be for the democratic party If
the republicans. after winning an cleo
tion on the distinct promise of tariff
revision, should break their promise.
either by no action at all, or such ac-
ton as would give the lie to their pro-
fessions. That would be certain to give
the next House to the democrats, and,
In addition, equip them with powerful
lever for 1912. Then the importers
would all be happy. Then the democratic
performance of 1894, characterized by
Mr.. Cleveland as an exhibition of per
fidy and dishonor,' would lose its
primacy for bad faith and for disastrous
consequences. The republicans would
be dished all along the line, and would
deserve their fate.