Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1913-05-04


pean politics is nationalism and since
the Republican party got power here
II has been very distinctive with us
II was simultaneous creation with
tariff protection, and the power Of
each has multiplied reciprocally.
Laws of Necessity.
All tariff revision then has Its just
and legitimate standard. No leader
ship or party prestige has fixed IT, il
has been fixed by the primal laws of
nature and necessity Nothing in the
politics of nations approaches more
nearly the point of universally than
protection; and the tariff is altogeth-
er the most extensive and inclusive
means employed In its application.
Why then should the United States be
exempt? In justice 1t is not. No par
ty can exempt 1t and at the same time
deal justly with II. We have no right
to revise our tariff schedules on
scale that puts us at disadvantage
internationally. Yet with the enlarge
ment OF the free list as an objective
point we do that very thing. The
Underwood bill does II. The presi-
dent approves the bill, 1t has his un
qualified endorsement. AS a break
away from high Republican protec
ton II is to the presidents mind an
ideal measure, SO Is 1t to the men
who make up the leadership in for
eign politics. one Of the objects of
OF "a 4 Ia ma N oh N 10 n on
free list. And In that particular the
Underwood bill certainly accommo-
dates them.
There is no just standard of revis
ion except that fixed by our protec-
tive tariff laws History is very eX-
plicit on this point. 1t brings together
for comparative analysis the revenue
and protective aspects of the tariff.
That covers the whole ground. The
view is thoroughly comprehensive. We
know what effect the different kinds
of tariff legislation have. The reason
is that we are so quickly and deeply
responsive to them. But this, re-
member, is not an individual response.
1t is national. The nation apart rom
individuallsm is involved. The ques
ton is as to whether II shall be pro-
tected or ignored by the most poten
ton of all laws. And you must admit
it is quite a serious question. BY the
efficiency or defect of laws nations
rise or all. How extremely indscret
then IL would be not to make the
greatest Of all laws defensive. To fall
short at that point is to defeat the
object of legislation.
The constitutional system OF Eng
land makes the best statutes in time
fundamental. 1t becomes habitual and
constitutional. Suppose the organic
law Of this country was cumulative
instead Of rigidly specific, and that
the revenue or nonprotective tariff
o the Democratic party was custom
airy. 1t would become basic in law
and free Of the changes to which leg
islation Is subject 1t would be con-
stitutional and exempt from the con-
gressional action of any succeeding
the last fifty years would the United
States be as ar removed from the
conditions that plunged 1t into war for
the constitution as It is, Most certain
ly It would not be. for the sword was
drawn for an ampler ard mighter ma
ton, and revenue tariffs are not pro-
ductive OF either national amplitude
or power.
They set no standard by which
Just revision may be made. Only in
the protective tariffs do we get that.
And the reason is obvious. In pro-
lection is manifest the thrift and per
petuity OF government. II is the prin
ciple of all constructive and colossal
statesnanshp. In the American tar
If It finds the elimination of its pow
ers. Then why shouldn't we employ
it. 1t is perfidious not to. 1t Is the
natural and indisputable law of re-
vision. 1t isn't legitimate. from the
standpoint OF fidelity. to revise tar
IF and ignore protection.