Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1871-09-21


tent not to lose what we absolutely
need. If all parties enter upon the
consideration Of the question of tar
iff, in this spirit, we shall be satisfied
| with the result.
Col. McCook defines his position in
a speech delivered at Charden, July
27th, and quarrels with the tariff on
coal and iron, imposed for the benefit
of Pennsylvania, on hemp for Nilsson
ri, and as to salt, on which the New
England fish-mongers have draw
back This he follows UP with TRADE
about the taxes which poor. men have
to pay on tea and coffee, And yet he
says Democrats are not free traders,
and can't be-" Inasmuch as he agrees
with US that large revenue from i'm
port duties is necessary, it would be
| interesting to know just how he would
| distribute it, if he is not satisfied with
the present arrangement. But Col. Nc
| Cook knows very well that in his views
| of the tariff he represents not the whole
Democracy It was only three years
lago that the Democratic National con
vention resolved, ''that VIC are in favor
of tariff for revenue upon foreign
/ llDiJOElS, ullNI SDS1 CAiuAA lSt-Ahe6AN0 49,
der the laws as will afford incidental
protection to domestic manufactures,
and as will, without impairing the rev.
enuc, impose the least burden and best
promote and encourage the great in
dustrial interests of the country"
And yet the Democratic convention
at Columbus, three months ago, resolV-
ed, "that we are in favor of q strictly
revenue tariff, conformed to the theO-
~ and principle of all other just and
wise tax laws, and opposed to the pro-
tective theory, so called"
And Col. McCook says: "a tariff
for protection is wrong in principle, I"
The Democrats of Pennsylvania want
a high tariff on coal and iron, the pro
ducts of their locality. Kentucky and
Missouri Democrats want it on hemp !;
the cotton States on cotton; the south
west on sugar, molasses and tobacco.
In other words, as have before said,
the tariff cannot, at present, be made
n party issue; but individual opinions
about it will vary according to local in
terests and cmplOyments. Probably the
platform of the National Democratic
convention of 1868, which have quot
: ed, as nearly as any. sets forth the cor
rect doctrine upon this difficult and 81
ways perplexing subject. The Demo
Gratis themselves would let it alone,
but they seek in it another complaint
, against the party in power. Horace
/ Bushnell, in very interesting article
, on free trade and protection published
r in Scribner's Monthly, in July of this
year, sums up the cases where protec
| ton is vindicated, even when its ad
: vantages are tested by the rules o
commercial profit are conceded, as fol
? lows:
4 l. When it is incidental as regards
7 duties imposed for revenue.
/ g. When the duties to be laid art
5 likely only to be a temporary loss.
= 3. When it may be regarded us Il re
7 taliatory measure.
= f. When the munitions Of war anc
e the equipments for it require to be thus
4 provided.
e 5. When the saving of investment
e already made demands it.
S 6. Protection. though it be losing
/ bargain as in trade, Is generally neces
a sary in States that are young, in orde
y to their full organized development
0 Under the first head mentioned b.
c Mr. Bushnell, without stopping her
c to discuss the others, we find sufffcien
S reason for tariff which is incidental
c ly protective. We must have yer
+ large revenue for present purposes
e We cannot, and do not desire, to rails
g it by direct taxation. 1t ought to b
e laid, not equally, pro rata, but SO 8
y to fall most heavily upon luxuries, an
/ so rs to encourage our productive il
d dustries. It will be time enough
it discuss the theory of absolute fire
G trade, when we have no need of tari
d for revenue. AS scientific theory,
}. is interesting and plausible.