92 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



the plain homely, practical everyday theory that controls us in all our 

 private relations, and no man will do business with his neighbor unless 

 his neighbor will do business with him; and it is as true in National af- 

 fairs, as in individual affairs. Mr. Dingley in framing his bill — and I 

 remember the discussions, thought that section 4 would absolutely open 

 the way to a settlement of all cases, and I believed so. It was practi- 

 cally the inauguration of the maximum and minimum tariff idea, it was an 

 inauguration if it had been practically carried out by the senate as they 

 had practically pledged themselves to do, because I consider that when 

 the Senate voted for that law, with that provision in it, when they 

 authorized Mr. McKinley to make these treaties, they were in honor 

 bound, unless they could show a most grevious failure in the treaties, 

 to ratify them and carry out the law. That was an act of bad faith, and 

 I believe the people of this country may hold them responsible for it. 

 They should re-enact by a joint resolution section 4, reviving it and 

 authorize the President again to undertake negotiation of these treaties 

 and to give us that kind of r-^lief. Of course those of us who have been 

 Interested in this matter of reciprocity have reached the conclusion that 

 the only proper and ultimate way of settling this question is by inaugurat- 

 ing a maximum and minimum system of duties which was pointed out 

 and would have worked under the Dingley Law, if it was carried out 

 properly. We could have gradually had a conventional rate twenty per 

 cent less than the statutory rate, there would have been the two duties, 

 a maximum and minimum. We ought to have the executive authorized 

 to apply the minimum whenever reciprocal concessions can be obtained 

 that justify it from any nation, without additional legislation; he should 

 not have to go to Congress, he should not have to bring up this great 

 question for general discussion. I agree that it is unwise to have un- 

 stability, I agree that a general discussion of tariff is liable to create 

 some harm and some uncertainty: But if it must be done, and all agree 

 ihat sooner or later it must be done, when is the time to do it? When 

 the sun is shining and everything is fair? Or shall we wait until the 

 clouds gather and open and the rains begin to descend and then attempt 

 io build an ark of refuge? There were men who laughed at Noah, who 

 said he was an old fool, even though he had a tip from the weather 

 bureau. They said it wasn't going to be much of a shower anyway. 



Then there is another famous gentleman known in history who lived 

 in Arkansas, he would not mend his roof when the weather was clear and 

 bright because it did not need it, and he could not do it when it rained. 

 Should we imitate that class of people? Or shall we with business saga- 

 city take the steps necessary to build up our business with other nations? 



Mr. McKinley and the Dingley bill never said anything about non- 

 competitive products. How can you have reciprocity in non-competitive 

 products? We have nothing to trade on in them. But the Dingley 

 bill in section 4 provided for concessions upon the whole schedule. Sec- 

 tion 3 provided for half a dozen articles that are not altogether non- 

 competitive, but they are mentioned specifically by name. And to-day 



