Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-06-07
Just Like SHINING Cats.

| devoted a characteristic blast at US
| Burleigh. who happened to be away
and knew nothing of it. Developments
| at Washington caused us to change
our mind after we had determined to
| file this with our collection of Editor
| Dingley's assaults upon President
| Taft Representatives Charles A. Bou-
| telle. Charles E. Littlefield, John P.
| Swasey, Edwin C. Burleigh, Frank e.
| Guernsey. and Asher Kinds, and Sena-
tors Hale and Frye. Some day we
expect to publish symposium of these
| quotations from Editor DingIeys col
| umns. and at the same time inquire
of that gentleman as he inquiries of the
publisher of this paper in the follow
| ing paragraph:
Ex-Congressman Burlegh's organ yet
honors US by snarlng at the Lewiston
Journal for attacking Justification and
| for defending Reciprocity. 1t dare not
direct its criticism against Taft, author
of the Canadian agreement which is sure
| to be ratified sooner or later. How will
| the defeated congressman look in 1912
when he will have to choose between
Taft for the Presidency and the Salt Riv-
| er to which an enthusiastic public re-
tired him to 1910?
The year 1912 has not yet arrived
and we are taking care of the present
before we do the future.
1t is not a question of those, who re-
fused to follow the President in an
un-swamped road, squaring them
selves with him.
Republicans who refused to throw
over the protective policy for a one
sided free trade mirage have no ex-
cuses to offer. They have deserted
no one. but We're deserted. How are
| the deserters TO square themselves?
To turn the question upon Editor
Dingley, we would respectfully ask
what is to be his refuge in mis-
progressive" stand? He is with a
minority of the Republican party at
the best he can claim. The Republi-
can party is in minority with the
bSiioiidliN PAL llt hht"o Niidt ttit
great majority of votes for the ''reci-
procity'' free trade fake are Demo-
cratic.
Now, after Editor Dingley has alien
ated the farmer to save the protection
principle ION manufacturer how can
he ask the same farmer to help keep
up protection and defeat a free trade
Democracy?
If arguments for reciprocity" are
TRUE. then arguments for any sort
of protection are FALSE. On which
side is Editor Dingley?
The Democrats are voting for reel
procity' hoping to kill protection.
How are the progressive Republi-
cans who vote with the Democrats
going to square themselves with the
country?
eff the farmer is compelled to sell
at free trade prices in competition
with a foreign country all for the
benefit Of the consumer, why must
he pay protective tariff rates on things
he has to buy for the benefit of those
who are unwilling to give him any
protection at all?" asks a writer in
| the Cleveland Leader. We refer the
question to Editor Dingley.
The same writer propounds the fol-
| lowing. and we pass ii along:
| You say that because the farmer
raises surplus of wheat which he
must export, the Tariff does him no
good, and therefore wheat should come
in free. Then If the Steel Trust ex
ports rails and sells in foreign coun-
tries at s24. while it is selling here for
$2S. surely there should be no Tariff
on any kind Of steel. You want reci-
proeity so that our manufacturers can
sell their surplus in Canada in omen
competition with Free-Trade in Eng
land. and of course sell at lower prices
than they do in the United States. and