The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-02-21

real Republicans who might aspire to
be delegates at large. Somehow, the
first mentioned by several was that Of
f. Dumont Smith, and there was a
general agreement that this one-tinle
senator from Hutchinson was about
| the right size to figure in a national
| convention. Then there was quick
suggestion of Judge Charles L-obdell, al
leading citizen of Dighton, who has
been valiant and loyal.
Capt. w. H. Mitchell of Beloit. and
Judge Moore of Abilene, were brought
J to view and commended. J. K. Case
| of Abilene and former Congressman ].
ID. Bowersock of Lawrence, were all
| given something more than mention.
Then came commentator for former
I Congressman E. H. Funston, Familiarity
known as ''Foghorn" Funston in con-
gress back in the early '9o's. James
! Nation, former auditor of state, and
the Hon. Hy Allen came in for appro-
/ baton
Nor did any one of the Washington
gathering of Kansas Republicans over
1 look either Cyrus Leland, once mem
Der of the national committee. David
w. Mulvane, the present representative
| of Kansas on the national committee,
may also wish to be a delegate st
large. W. P. Hooking of Winfield, and
Tom Wagstaff, young and capable
| chap, lately ambitious to be governor,
| came in for fair share of approval.
! 1t was mentioned, too, that Wagstaf
might be a candidate for the national
| committee membership.
There is no objection to Committee
| man Mulvane, who has had two terms,
and there are many who express the
] belief that should he desire to be Sc
lected another term as national com
mftteman he would get it almost hands
| big men of the state, is prince Of
good fellows, and is we'll known
throughout the country.
Congressman w A. Ca1derhead Of
Kansas made a ten-minute speech in
the house on the subject of RECIPROCITY
with Canada. Judge Calderhead is an
| able lawyer, student, and a statesman
| in the real sense of the word. When
| he makes a speech in congress dealing
with affairs of state he always enjoys
| the closest attention of his colleagues
| because his opinion carries weight
Judge Calderhead does not favor
| agreement to the treaty at this time,
| because, as he says. the farmers of the
country have not had an opportunity
| to study the real effects of the treaty.
He declared that reduction in every
| farm product will occur the day that
| the treaty goes into effect. In part,
| he said:
I'm my term of IA wears of service I
| have never known any important meas
| ure presented to this house concerning
which less information was given to
the members than upon this Canadian
reciprocity measure. I do not know who
prepared the form of the bill or the
terms of it, except that the gentleman
from Massachusetts, (Mr. McCalD
whose name appears on the bill, de-
clared that he is the putatiVe father OF
| it. Nobody has told either the COM
| mittee on ways and means or the house
| who the parties to this agreement are
The gentleman from Connecticut
speaks about the duty of being neigh
| borly to a people who speak the same
language and have the same customs
aud adjoin our territory, but this must
| be an agreement between Sovere1gns.
| Where is the sovereignty in canada :?
The constitution of Canada is an act OF
parliament, and it can be repealed at
any time The parliament of Canada
can pass no legislation that can not
be revised in the parliament of the inn
peria1 government.
Even this agreement when it is
made is subject to the approval or veto
of the king and the privy council. VINO
are the parties to this agreement? Who
are we dealing with? What benent
would we get from it, if the imperial
| government at any time chooses to
change the preferential which she re-
| ouires of her colony there? Since it has
| been under discussion in England the
premier has said that he hoped that
|
consideration of it until the imperial
government would determine what
preferentials should be fixed for her
dependencies and her colonies, includ-
! ing Canada. l will not now enter into
| a discussion of what might be gained
or lost by the Omission of foreign
products in competition with our own.
| What is Canada giving to us for the
| opportunity to sell in American mar
| ket3? The gentleman from Connectl-
ff1H of CT n
| figures, and eloquent about it, giving u.
| a new definition of protective tar1ff,
! but for As years west of the Ohio river
we have been standing by his bellef
and his testimony concerning the bene-
| fit of a protective tariff, maintaining
the manufacturing system of New Eng
| land, and cheerfully paying the cost OF
it in order that we may have homo
market for the things which go from
orr farms Just when did he learn that
| If would be better to get them from
Canada? He did not tell us, except In
| one sentence, and that is that the
center of manufacturing IS now IN the
state of Indiana That is why It IS
necessary for the gentleman from Con-
necticut to be asking for free trade
with Canada and why he is willing for
free trade with any other country
where the difference in the cost of pro-
here. This is a new Interpretation OF
| n protective tariff. When did any party
| in this country ever define protective
| tariff to be a tariff justified only by
| the difference in the cost OF productlon
| here and elsewhere.
Now, what the gentleman from
! Connecticut and some others are call
/ ing for and are willing to do Is to wipe
it all out the moment that the cost of
production abroad agrees with the
cost of production here. Why. in the
British Columbia government the gov
ernor of the province has absolute