Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1911-02-23

Il lIdue upon every. manufactured artl!
4 ctei because, inasmuch as we are to
1 lose the privilege Of our h0lae mar
slket, we are at disadvantage With
!. our competitors across the line, for
they enjoy very much lower duties III
on the things that The, Duy and mich
! 80 into the prodHat.rl cf ,tsli, ulsllIll
. commodities than Ne 10
1 This proposed arrangement is no
reciprocity at all rs understood by
protectionists like Elaine and ,,Alcilin-
ISinley, because thai did not relate to
competitive articles. Mckinley was
last elected President, in 1900 upon
the following tariff platform.
Protection Policy Reaffirlned
i We renew orr faith in the policy OF
policy our Industries have been es
d tablished, diversified, and maintained.
j BY protecting the home market, COM
petition has been stimulated and pro-
1 duction cheapened. Opportunity to the
inventive genius of our people has
been secured and wages in every de-
partment Of labor maintained at high
raies-higher now than ever before
and always distinguishing our work
ing people in their better conditions
Of life from those of any competing
country. Enjoying the blessings Of
in the right of self-g government, and
protected in the occupancy of their
OVID markets, their constantly i'll
creasing knowledge and skill nave
enabled them to finally enter the mar
lSets of the world
Reciprocity Favored
We favor the associated policy of
. reciprocity, SO directed as to open
our markets on favorable terms for
what we do not ourselves produce IN
return for free foreign markets.
This is what Mckinley believed in
and what he stood for, and is perfect
ly consistent with protection, and no
garbled extracts from his speeches
, can sustain the claim that he ever
changed his mind or his position Oh
+ this subject
!, The papers today report the Presi
! dent as saving, in a speech at Spring
field. H., that
There was a time when leading Re
! publicans thought that there was no
danger of having tariff higher than
+ necessary to protect any industry II
was thought that if the country was
!, made dependent Oh manufacturers be
!, hind the tariff wall the competition
. between the manufacturers would
i stimulate the reduction in the cost OF
J, production aud thus reduce the price
; But the temptation to combine. by
which the price could be controlled
and thus the excessive tariff taken ad
i vantage of, led to q modification OF
:, alton that the protection of any indus
, try ought not to exceed in the tariff!
imposed mere, than the difference be
tween the cost of production abroad
the cost of production here, and
: enough to give a fair profit to the
:, domestic producer or manufacturers
r It is then asserted that the condi
tons of production and of manufact
, ure in the United States and Canada
are substantially the same, and that
therefore the limitation on protective
duties above indicated justify the re
moval Of the duties contemplated in
F the agreement. But here is where the
argument fails to sustain the conclu-
sion.
The conclusion would be that we
should have free trade with Canada
both in agricultural products and
manufactured goods. If the condi-
lions Of production are the same. UNI
der this theory there should be no
|
duty and yet every article of manu-
facture, from farm implements and
machinery down to dressed meat and
flour, remains on the dutiable list at
rates from 20 to As per cent
Is it not strange that the products
of the farm, in which there can be and
II ic M cOD,bipatio,, ~ ~, o,,,,o1,, =: ~, .
first to be put on the free list, while
the manufactured goods, even down
to secondary food products, partly
manufactured, in which there not
only can be, but usually is, a combna-
ton and monopoly, are to be contin.
ued on the dutiable list at high
rates?
It appears from this argument that