Daily Kennebec journal., 1911-04-24

Han has expressed LIS - - idea
tat to those WHO ha,a t. fering
and snlf-deiia, SHOULD come tie iiiss
- lie hcttF world. -. l1e..eg of ths
I..as!ai, i55.Hs the jo. OF the golden
streets. IL is real II iproeity. But
this bill iHtf .duees into that ancient,
instructive idea o. equity aew prin-
ciple; that ane class ut citizens is To
have the sacrGa#-. lille another
class enjoys re rewards The dairy
men Of New York and Ohio are to
tread the earthly pathway OF self
denial. and in reward the makers OF
harhed-wire fencing ere to roam the
El.sian fields Oaugl ~: the wheat
farmers Of the DalSotae are - keep the
loag vigil of Hur riCted camratition
and in return automobile makers
Il Detroit are to speed oNar tbs streets
of gold: the ashermcn = Gloucester
hn keep watch and watch With death
ca tlc banks OF newfoundland are 70
surrender their market, al ~ return
the Connecticut clock MAKERS are to
Set up their timepieees in the aims
of bliss. where a thousand years are
but as a day; the .lptato farmer cf
Maine or Michigan is 10 nave the trou-
Hes of Lazarus. hut the maker al har-
vesting machines is to rest ) mead on
tic lsosorI Of Ah,ahosl. Lauglter
and appia SCI one - "s tina;
another may reap d you .1ll It reci-
procity.
Names count for mrci with us, and
the names of Blaine and Mckinley are
being used to commend this PROPOSE
H. e.,
In his youth in 1854 as A Member of
this House. Mr Blaine voted to re-
peal an arrangement with Canada far
better than the one proposed now.
since 1t gave free coal. which this
does not. And in his later days Mr.
Blaine in his Twenty Years of Con-
gross referred to that reciprocity as
"one-sided, veXatious, and unprolit
able Mr.. Mckinley made the very
tariff duties which you are now try
ing TO sweep away; and. like Mr..
Blaine. never favored reciprocity in
competing products.
Reverses Policy of a Century
The broad proposition which is before
US is that ,ariff duties levied on our
Horders against commodities produced by
foreign people. be swept away so far
as the principal and practically the only
competitors of our farmers are affected.
We are giving the farmer free trade and
are pleading in justification that it will
not hurt him and will help the consumer.
II these two pleas are consistent and
truthful, well and good. If either or
both be fallacious, we must know it.
one significant fact may arouse in our
minds Il suspicion that We are wrong in
| removing the protection from the far
mer's products. Protection for the far
mer is an old national policy coeval with
the Constitution itself. In 1889 living was
simple. There were not many food pro-
duets of the farm that could be imported
Potatoes were raised abroad only in
limited quantities. The peasantry OF
France still believed them poisonous
The bread eaten by the American people
was principally made of Indian corn
wheaton bread appearing on the table on.
~ when the minister came. But there
was one foreign article that could com
pete in our markets-cheese. And tn,
statesmen of 1883 put duty of four cent:
pound on cheese. For 125 years, will
few intervals, there has been tariff OF
cheese, usually four cents a pound, il
1916 as high as nine cents. Under th,
Democratic Wilson tarill it was fou
cents today it is six cents. Our fathers
1 made 1T four cents when the nearest com
= petition was 1000 miles away over n,
= ocean. Freight ran into dollars an,
2 weeks. Today our tariff on cheese is onl,
six cents a pound. ard one of the grea
eheese-making countries of the world i
separated from our markets only by
few cents and few hours.
: You propose to reverse the policy O
l25 years and give us, not lower duties
!, but free trade with our only competition
!, not only in cheese, but in all the princi