Arizona republican., 1912-08-09

l islation We are curious to know why 1 this subject was introduced at all. The reciprocity agreement having been rejected by Canada, is without effect as to any industry in this country eX- cept one. the paper trust. known as ! the International Paper company which began immediately after the defeat of reciprocity by the Canadians, to try to have the legislation repealed Senator Heyburn, a standpatter of the standpatters, introduced repeal bill last winter but it failed. Again, the standpatters a few mOnhs ago steel tariff bill an amendment repeal ing the Canadian reciprocity legisla- ton. That amendment had the sup port of not only all the standpatters but of every so-called progressive sen- atOr, regardless of politics, from every state where the paper trust has a mill of attempted privileged class legisla- tion was never presented. In all the argument on the subject, no senator favOring the amendmet had the hardi hood to offer the true reason of his support of it or to say that the paper trust needed the protection that would result from it's adoption. Yet, the naked repeal of the treaty legislation meant either the restoration of the Payne Aldrich tariff, or as the amend ment proposed. q modification of that tariff The senate adopted the amend ment but the house forced it out in conference
 Now, why should the new party pro- pose the repeal of the treaty legisla ton whose only present effect is to make wood pulp and print paper little cheaper in this country. It is unlikely that it will ever have any broader effect. The Canadians show no more inclination to assent to the when they overwhelmingly rejected it and threw over the Laurier govern ment.
 The progressive platform does not declare against the principle of reel procity It could not. indeed. do so consistently. Following Mir. Blaine and Mir. Mckinley. MT. Roosevelt dur ing his administration weakly recon mended such an agreement with Can ada. However, he did not press it against the iron opposition of Cannon and Aldrich. Nor. by the way. did he press vigorously any other measure against that cOterie which the pro- gressives now describe as the Olig- archy
 If MT. Taft had been as timorous and as weakly dependent upon the leaders of his party there would have been no reciprocity legislation. A ma jority of his party was against him. He threatened to appeal to the demo- crats for assistance The republican leaders regarded that as a bluff and smiled. They remembered the ROose- welt bluff in the matter of the Hep burn bill. MT Taft. however, proved that he was not a bluffer. He made his appeal to the democrats openly and they came to his aid. forcing 10 the support of the president all of the republicans except the more rigid standpatters and his more stubborn enemies among the progressives, leav-
 ing an Unmatched opposition.
 It is true that owing to the action of Canada the victory of the president turned out to be an empty one, except as to the removal of protection from the paper trust
 For what reason does the new party want to restore that? What principle can be involved in the proposal to re- peal the treaty legislation except the principle of reciprocity which the platform does not attack But if it did do so, why should that opposition be asserted now? Why should it be desirable to give effect to the Opposi- tiOn now when the principle is dor mant, when the only beneficiary of it's action would be the most monOpolistic of all American trusts?