The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-04-28
'esvth Avenue and goth Street

states that are pronouncedly democratic in political faith, and 90 per cent of their inhabitants, who read newspapers, are ot the democratic party. Washington, too, is southern city. and majority of the newspaper readers of this town are dem ocrats And yet every daily paper pub lshed in the District of Columbia is re- publican in politics-the two leading ones, the Post and the Star, intensely SO, and the other two, the Herald and the Times. mildly so. In this community, democrat must wait to hear from New York or Phil adelphia, Baltimore or Richmond, or Nor folk, before he can get political opinions to suit him.
 The following from the Washington Post is not only extreme in it's republican, ism, but it is fanatic in it's sectionalism:
 '"The southern farmer never cried out against Canadian competition in the past, nor has he joined his northern neighbor in opposing the ratification of the reci- procity agreement. The south was not in sympathy with the imposing of high duty on Canadian products in the first place, for the twofold reason that 1t de- rived no appreciable benefit, and then it vas contrary to the democratic low-tariff policy. The Canadian tariff was just high enough to protect the northern farm er and he alone could be affected one way or the other by taking the tariff off.
 These things being true, why should manufactures used exclusively in the south go on the 'farmes' free list? Does it profit the farming community along the Canadian border for Congress to take the tariff off cotton gins, cotton baggine gunny cloth, and all devices suitable for handling cotton, together with other ar ticles of manufacture never seen in that latitude? The framers of the free list set up the plea that they would remove the tsriff on articles used especially by the farmers in order to compensate them for any losses they might suffer through reciprocity, but how can they reconcile their words with their deeds? Besides. as the south--farmers and everybody-would share with the north any gain which might accrue from the adoption of the free list exclusive of the articles above mentioned, it would look as if the com mittee had deliberately gone out of the way to give the southern farmer all the northern farmer gets and untold millions more"
 Now, let me look al that. Not for one moment of it's entire existence has the G. o. P. been national. and every tariff 1t ever made was sectional. and the Payne-Aldrich monstrosity Is exception ally so The farmers free list" pre- pared by Mir Underwood, takes a chunk of sectionalism out of the tariff. Now listen. M
 Binding twine, a necessary to the wheat grower, is on the free list Why? Be- cause the wheat states are at the north, and they vote the republican ticket. On the other hand, steel ties are as much of a necessary to the cotton planter as bind- ing twine to the wheat grower. But cot ton ties are not only taxed in the Payne monopoly, but the tax is practically pro hibitory, made so to swell the millions of Andrew Carnegie and the other 4s mill lionaires that Carnegie boasts he made by means of the tariff on metals. Simple jus tice demands that the man who tills the soil at the south shall be put on an exact equality with the man who tills the soil at the north.
 Again, there Is a tariff of 15 cents a bushel, or 20 per cent ad valorem, on corn, and it yielded $s4,352 revenue the fiscal year 1909 The corn states are at the north, and they vote republican. Cotton is on the free list--that is, the cotton in the ownership of him who grows it. In toI If cOt- ton in the bale. valued at $13622, SOP. and there also came in of cotton wastes Of Hacks" 2s, ,s30, ,95S pounds, valued at M,22l,- 51S total $14843,320. A duty of 20 per cent ad yaiorem on that would have yielded s2. 96S. .664 But the cotton states vote the democratic ticket. Everybody, even tne Washington Post, knows that had cotton been exclusively grown at the north there would have been a protection duty or ai least 50 per cent laid on it.
 Now. I am opposed to a duty on cotton in the hale, but I am also opposed to duty on grain of every description. l was present the hot summer Of iSoS when MI. Aldrich said to the south that ne was as a,. i,, favor of protecting what was n.oa,,csd Tn that section as he was tn- pi,ned to protect the industries of the rnrth what pity 1t Is that some Of his southern friends. who are so anxious to rsscb the tariff test. did not hing 20 per csnt duty on raw cotton at him, just to see him take water.
 I heard John sharp Williams make an ard had there coursed in his veins "all inc blood of all the Towards" he could not have done 1t grander. He said he was a cotton grower, and the duty would put money in his pocket; but thy servant was not dog and he scorned 1t. If every senator were to resign who votes to swell his own personal gains by means of the taxing power, fear a search warrant would fail to discover quorum of that body.
 And why should not the cotton planter be put on an exact equality with the grain grower? There is no reason In nor als. and the sole reason in politics Is that one lives at the south and is democrat nd tha other lives at the north and ts a