The Washington times., 1909-06-03

greatness of these industries. The
money invested IN these industries is
just as sacred and the same as the
money invested in ether industries: they
give employment and homes to-hundreds
of thousands Of Wage-earners.
Business Is Helped.
Carrying on these Industries helps
the general business of the whole peo-
pie and country. Then, why disorlmi-
nate against them by putting them on
the free list or imposing on them q low
duty? ANY injury 10 them, any hin
drance to their progress and success,
any impairment in any way would be
a great loss, not only TO these indus
tries, but to the whole country. It
would cause a diminishing volume Of
business throughout the entire coun-
try; there would be reduction of wages.
and thousands Of people would be
thrown out of employment
The value OF the annual output of
coal, lumber, and oil in the United
States is equal TO the value OF the
farm products Of fifteen agricultural
States. or equal TO the value OF the
manufactured products Of many States
in the East, all Of whose products are
highly protected.
ct has been argued in this debate,
I believe. for the first time in the Sen
ate, that because a product Is ex-
hausted by uss it should not be pro-
tected.
..Tbis is a worse heresy than out-and-
out free trade, and I hope it viii hnd
no place IN our tariff system. Whether
an industry is short lived or long lived
it should make no difference In the pro-
lection which It should receive while II
Omen To Objections.
2 the theory has also been advanced
that coal. oil. lumber, iron ore, and
other products exhausted or destroyed
by use should be put on the free list as
a means TO their conservation. This
theory, while new and strange, is open
to the objection that the burden Of
conservation falls on the individual and
not on the state Conservation Is in the
public interest, and, therefore. the indi-
viduaI owner should not be made TO
suffer to promote the general good.
IF we arc going 10 open the markets
OF the United States for coal, oil. and
lumber 70 Canada, Mexico, and the
countries OF Europe, why not open
them to farm products, and let Canada
supply them on the north. and Mexico
supply lumber, cattle, oil. zinc, and lead
on the south, on the theory that tt is
best 10 prolOng the life Of these IN
dustries by letting foreigners share our
markets or drive our people out OF
them thai these products may be con-
served %
Effect Of Favoring.
Abiding to effects OF discriminating
in favor Of some sections. he continued !:
THE effect of favorfEg some States
and sections in making the tariff and
discriminating against others would be
disastrous. West Virginia votes will
ingIy 4for duty on wheat. corn, meat,
hides, barley, eggs, potatoes, and other
AGRICULTURAL products Of Dakota and the
Northwest to protect her people and
farmers against like products coming
from Canada. West Virginia votes for
a duty on all manufactured goods OF
products Of New England. the East.
Pennsylvania, and other States, even
If she manufactures none of them. She
does so on the broad. general principle
of protection. l would consider IL fair
to put on the free list products Of other
states which my State did not produce
protection has been the foundation
upon which the great manufacturing in
dustries Of New England. Pennsylvania,
New York. and New Jersey. and other