The Washington herald., 1912-11-24

that is necessary and wise, was looked
upon with suspicion as containing hid
den advantages for the manipuIators
of great wealth. 1t is quite significant
that since the election the great fnan-
cial interests have been apparently un-
disturbed. When it is remembered that
Mr.. Wilson was first suggested as a
Presidential possibility by representa-
tive Of the Morgan interests and that
this representative remained loyal to
him despite a situation which, under
other circumstances, would naturally
have resulted in an estrangement, there
is afforded some ground for the belief
that there is a complete understanding
as to the course which Mr.. Wilson is
to pursue. The decision is neither
illogical nor improbable, and if, in
course of time, Mr. Wilson should de-
termine that the currency legislation
which the financial interests, insist upon
is all important, it will be demon
strated that these great, controlling in
ferests are as adept in handling po-
litical situation as they are in manag-
ing financial affairs. 1t is yet to be
demonstrated whether a change of ad-
ministration will adversely affect the
domination of capital in this country.
If Woodrow Wilson does not want
to be a second Grover Cleveland and
create a ruction in his own party, he
will, for the time being at least, let the
financial question: rest undisturbed.
And what is Mr.. Wilson to do about
the tariff?
He is at heart a free trader. He has
advocated the repeal of all protective
laws and believes that as there is a
free interchange of commodities be-
tween the States of this Union there
should also be a similar interchange
between the United States and the pro-
ducing countries of the world. Speaker
Clark is a free trader, willing to see
all custom-houses destroyed; Chairman
Underwood. although perhaps more
conservative, boasted on the floor of
the House that his bills contained little
or no vestige of protection; and the
Democratic platform declares protection
to be unconstitutional. At the same
time it is evident that if the policy
under which the United States has de-
veloped unexampled prosperity during
the past fifty years should be sud
denly wiped out, great distress would
follow 1t would mean national dis
aster. What, then, is to be done about
the tariff?
Once again history affords a strik-
ing parallel In the last Democratic
administration bill was reported from
the Ways and Means Committee by
William L. Wilson, a free trade
theorist, which was so radical in its
additions to the free list and in its re-
duction of the tariff upon manufac-
tured articles that the only Eastern
Democrat upon the committee declined
to vote for it. and in the House seven
teen Democrats voted against it. But
then. as now, an overwhelming Demo
cratic majority passed it and it went
to the Senate. Then. as now, the Sen
ate was Democratic by bare ma
jority of one. Every Democratic Sen
ator had to be appeased and satisfied |
before he would give his consent to
vote affirmatively As a result, the |
bill, when it was reported to the Sem
ate, was unrecognizable Coal and iron
ore were no longer on the free list |
There was a duty on sugar to satisfy
the Louisiana Senators; there was pro-
lection on citrus fruits at the demand |
of the Florida Senators; there wcs
even high duty on shirts, collars, and |
cuffs in order TO obtain the vote of a |
New York Senator who lived in Troy |
The Wilson free trade bill was thus
transformed into a measure which, |
while destructive to many American
manufacturing interests. recognized in
no small degree the principle of pro-
lection Grover Cleveland, in angry !
fashion, called it a thing of perhdy |
and dishonor, but through the aid OF
Populist votes, it passed by a narrow
margin of five, and the House swallow
ed it in its entirety because no other
bill could pass the Senate. 1t is not
at all unlikely that we shall see in the
future a repetition OF this history. The
bill which will pass the House will
not be the law which will be enacted |
There will be Democratic Senators of
conservative stripe who will insist upon
some measure of protection and their
demands will have to be needed or
there will be no revision of the tariff.
With the apparent knowledge that
currency legislation satisfactory to
them will be proposed and enacted, and
that the practically equal division of
parties in the Senate will be an OBJ
stacle to radical tariff legislation, the
financial interests are naturally viewing
the future with equanimity. 1t is, of
course, unfortunate that under our sys-
fem of government there r1,uSt he 6,-e