The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1913-05-21

The alleged Reader" and it refused
to do so, the editor of the paper must
answer for it. We do not blame the
Bulletin for hedging and not answer
ing the questions submitted by the
all of which strike at the
heart of free trade, that lifelong doc
trine of the democratic party. The
resort to subterfuge by answering
"We have never had free trade in
this country" is simply begging the
question and shows the inability Of
the Bulletin to meet the situation.
The Bulletin does not seem to be ia
miliar with the history of its party
when it asserts I'VE never had free
trade in the country at any time" 1t
speaks of the adversely which came
to the country in 1857 when, it says,
we had protection. If the Bulletin
would but consult the history of poll
tics of that period it would discover
that we had the democratic party in
power, but did not enjoy protection.
About all that we had prior to 1860
for thirty years or more was the dem
ocratic party and adversely. The
Walker tariff bill which passed con-
gress in 1886, was low tariff bill
and the amendment passed in 1857 re-
duced the rates to the lowest mini
mum and Immediately following this
change came the panic of 1857, when
practically free trade was in force
and this adversely continued until Mr..
Lincoln's election in 1860, and until
the portective tariff law was passed
soon after. This is matter of his.
tory with which the Bulletin should
be familiar and we are surprised to
have it assert that we had protection
in 1857.
If the editor of the Bulletin will
go out upon the street and talk to
men like w. A. McHenry, James Rol
Inns, John VanWinkle, Robert Mont
gomery and John L. Richardson, who
are old enough to remember whether
we had free trade or not in 1857, and
also of the panic of that period, he will
find out Just what he would discover
iif he were to consult the history OF
his country, namely: That in 1857 we
had the democratic party, free trade
and a panic.
1t is immaterial to us whether the
"Reader of the Bulletin" is the editor
of that paper or some curiosity whom
he has discovered. We challenge an
answer to the question which the
amateur CD editorial writer of the
Review submitted to be answered and
which were lodged in last weeks is
sue of the Bulletin by asserting in
each case that 1--WE never had free
trade in this country"
If the Reader of the Bulletin
wishes a sample of free trade all that
he will have to do is to read the late
Underwood Wilson tariff bill, which
passed the house, wherein is found
free wool, free sugar and most every
thing else free except few indus
tries in the south and the steel trust
which seems to have been remem
bered and are protected If the Bull
letin wishes another instance of free
trade we call it's attention to the tar
if law of 1887, when we had free
trade and panics just as we had in
1857, and just as we had during
Cleveland's administration, when, at
ter the passage of the Wilson tariff
bill, although not SO much OF free
trade measure as the prior ones, was
enough to cause loss of confidence,
financial distress and ruin to the
country. When the tariff bill which
but recently passed the house and is
now pending in the senate, becomes
a law, if it is not changed by the SEN
ate, we will have free trade again and
will have all of the consequences
which have ever come to the country
from that policy and which may be
expected to come at any time when
free trade is in force.
President Wilson, Speaker Clark,
w. J. Bryan and that class of states
men do not resort to the subterfuge
of saying that such law is not free
trade; they glory in it because OF its
free trade features, which is the simon
pure doctrine of their party, and if the
Bulletin does not recognize it, it is
not loyal to it's party.