Urges Tariff Campaign

James H. Eckels, who was comptroller of the currency under the second administration of President Cleveland, is quoted in an interview as saying that that next democratic campaign ought to be conducted on the old tariff issue of "a tariff for revenue only." He believes the democrats might gain the presidency and the house of representatives on such a platform. He also said that in his opinion the next democratic platform should favor expansion. He thinks the position of the party on this issue should be that as the Philippine islands have come into the possession of the United States and are destined to remain in our possession for a long time, it is our duty to enact wise legislation which will result in the just exercise of governmental authority in these possessions. In other words, he seems to be convinced that we have expanded and that we are destined to remain expanded for a tong time to some, and therefore it is useless for the democrats to oppose what ready an accomplished fact, but instead should make the best of the situation until such time as the nation has made up it mind just what it desires to do with the islands.

His thought that the tariff should be made the paramount issue will appeal to many. The tariff was never more a living issue than it is today. In fact reform of the tariff is a more crying need now than ever before. The organization of the most important industries of the country into huge trust concerns operating in restriction of trade, has made the evils of protectionism almost crushing. It can scarcely be possible that the American people will continue indefinitely to pay more for goods here where they are made than any foreigner in the remotest part of the earth has to pay for the same article and all for the sole purpose of increasing the income of the trust. Surely the consumer will rise in his might some day and demand consideration at the hands of the law makers.

According to President Havemeyer, "the protective tariff is the mother of trusts." Be this as it may, it is true that the principal articles which are protected by the Dingley tariff are practically all made by trusts. No such law could ever have been enacted but for the fact that all the powerful concerns had their pork provided for. And in this very fact lies the great difficulty of removing the duty from trust-made products. What is the fight of one is the fight of all, and united they have thus far been stronger than the demand of the people for square dealing. If a break is once made by removing the duty on one trust-made product, the whole Dingley scheme will be pretty certain to collapse. What will the people do with "the mother of trusts?"