The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1881-12-08
Tuesday. December 6, 1881.

We have lately been treated to two tariff
conventions, one in Chicago and one in
New York. and they have both harped
upon the same subject; protection and
more of it. They deified projections set
it up as an image and fell down and wor-
shipped before it. To judge from their
resolutions and the speakers supporting
them, protection was the one thing need
full in any emergency. If person was
sick, give him protection; if we'll give him
protection; if poor, protection; if rich,
protection; they even composed machine
poetry about it until an outsider would
think that protection was the one thing
that kind Providence intended as the pan
acea for all ills.
But the query has been raised if protec-
ton is such benefit, why not carry it out
to its logical sequence? The eastern man
ufacturer is protected, SO they claim,
against his European competitor, then
why not in like manner protect the west
ern manufacturer against the eastern one
If favorable circumstances allow the Mas
sachusetts or Rhode Island cotton manu-
faeturer to produce cotton goods so as to
undersell the mandatory in Illinois. then
let us in Illinois, put such a tariff on the
cotton goods imported into this state as
to shut eff the eastern man from bringing
his goods here and allow of cotton mills
being established in our own state. If
there is any justice in this cry for protec-
ton surely this is nothing but logical
outcome, and also if the protectionists
plea that his policy keeps the balance of
trade in our favor, has anything of truth
in it, what is the use buying our goods of
of the east when we can as well do it at
home. The protection tariff forces our
farmers and citizens to pay almost double
for the necessaries of life, in order to keep
alive. Eastern manufactures why not,
if we have to be taxed, pay it at home; the
high tariff adds nothing to the price of our
corn and wheat To be sure the eonstitu-
ton of the United States prohibits such
protection but then we could have that
changed.
The whole of the matter is if it is right
to protect the manufactures of one sec
ton of the country from foreign imports
just to protect one state from the imports
of another. If you are going to
tax western farmers to support manu-
facturers, it is better for the
western farmer to tax himself for the ben
eft of a western manufacturer rather than
an eastern one. IF we are going to spend
money for such purposes let us spend it
in our own state.
The above can be called q ridiculous
if it is so desired, but it is moth
ing but the logic of protection brought
down to its simplest form. The scheme
of protection is to bolster up industries
that have no natural place lin the localities
where they are started. This of course
can only be done by some form of subsidy
and must be at the expense of those in
dustries that are self supporting. Pros
lection is the means employed among us
and it is easy to see how futile tits in
adding to the wealth of the country.
Take an industry that pays and one
which does not. The first must not only |
support itself but also the other The
second not being q non-paying concern
certainly brings in no wealth but on the
contrary it throws it away. Unless there
we're industries in a country which sup
ported themselves without the aid of pro /
ection there would be no possibility of
my existing with its aid; while the nat
Iral one can certainly exist with
ut the other. This country has become
ich not through the aid of protection but in