The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1879-09-26
FREE TRADE VS.. PROTECTION.

the article contained, was
not little chagrined at the levity,
or at least the careless manner in
stating the position of the two par
ties, for both are misrepresented. 1t
seems to me that when a person un-
dertakes 10 instruct or to lead CON-
munity, to deal with question of so
much Importance as the writer select
ed; personal self respect, if not ma
tional patriotism, would dictate moth
ing less than a manly and an intelli
gent treatment of the same.
70 The reason for the question being
agitated at this time, is on account
of the vast improvements which are
now beginning all over the state.
These improvements will cost an i'm
mense amount of money and will lay
upon the property of the state, much
like mortgage. For the principal
and interest will be expected by those
who loan the money for these i'm
provements, and those who have the
management Of them will expect to.
derive from the use of the same, by
the people, tax, which will pay
what we have before stated.
In the work of collecting material
to build railroad the managers find
steel rails, such as they desire, can
not all be obtained in the Eastern
states, and are compelled to seek else
where. These subsequently are found
in England, and offers are made to
furnish for the whole road at cost
of S2s per ton laid down on the
wharf in Portland. But law of
our government says, no steel rails
shall be brought into any port of the
q. S. from foreign port, without
paying tariff of S26 per ton upon
the same. The result: The compa-
ny find they can purchase from the
East rails at So or s3 per ton less
than the cost from a foreign port with
tariff added, are obliged to do so.
Here then in this transaction, gov
ernment has not obtained one cent
revenue, and the PROPERTY of the
state has forced and an additional
burthen to carry, by having inflated
prices placed upon the rails, and this
by the sanction of government The
parties pocketing the amount of tariff
less probably 50 or So per ton, are
the half dozen iron proprietors OF
some of the Eastern states. The
question then is, is it right for the
government, by its law, to make the
products of one portion of the coun-
try pay tribute for the products of
another portion of the country. the
government itself receiving no direct
benefit in the transaction
The question as now stated, and as
it works, changes it from question
of tariff to one of forced tribute for
which there can be no law. The
Free Trader does not plead for non
revenue for governmental purposes,
but objects to a compulsory building
up of private interests at the public
expense. 1t places itself upon high
moral ground, upon equity, and to
this end it enquiries: What is law,
or at least what ought it to be I?
What is its rational and moral mis-.
sion? Is it not to hold the balance
even between all rights, all liberties
and all property y? Is it not to pre-
vent and to repress oppression and
robbery wherever they are found p
The falsity of the position of the
protectlonist may be seen in this case
if it can be seen at all. It claims
that this prohibitory duty is necessa
ry in order that it may compete with
foreign iron for home market. Is
the iron interest all the interest we
have? Are there no other interests
deserving recognition? Have not the
Oregon farmers TO seek foreign
market for their production and have
they not tomeet competition there
Yet the government, fully aware OF
these facts, says, by its legislation, il
the Oregon farmer must have rail.
roads to convey his products to water
or seaboard, for export, then to come
in competition with Russian wheat
which has been raised proftably at a
cost of Is cents per bushel, he shall
pay the American iron manufactures
$26 per ton more for rails than the
same can be obtained in the market
which purchases all the surplus food
we raise.
Is this then the sagacity and
craftsmanship" we ought to look forl
Is this the policy to bring peaceful
and a glorious future Can we ex-
pect, when we make the law to saw