Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1882-03-23
Bsnlotfatit Northwest.
FRANK HURD
Talks Upon "Tarlff for Revenue Only"

called upon to respond 70 the toast "a
Tariff for Revenue Only, and respond.
ed in the following address:
In responding to the sentiment
which has been assigned to me, shall
use the phrase free trade as the equiv
alent of tariff for revenue only.
| shall not consider any of the di-
rect arguments which may be urged
in favor of that principle. 1t is my
purpose only to point out the ruinous
consequences which have followed the
adoption of protection in this country,
and expose some of the fallacies by
which the protective system is sought
to be supported.
And first, what is the effect of the
present tariff upon commerce? To ask
this question is to answer it, Our for
eign carrying trade has practically
ceased to exist In 1855, 400 vessels
were built in the United States, mostly
for foreign trade, while in 1879 there
were only 81 mostly for the coasting
trade. In 1855, rs per cent, of our ex-
ports and imports were carried in
American vessels, and in 1880 scarcely
l2 per cent. A distinguished COM
modore in our navy told me recently
that when he made bis first voyage in
1857, more than half the vessels he
saw in the South American ports carried
the American flag, while on his last voy-
age to the same ports, two years ago,
he did not see the AmericHn flag ex-
cept upon vessels owned by the gov
ernment. So completely has this car
rying trade passed from control that in
in 1880 we paid Sl25, 5,OOO,0OO to for
eign ship owners for carrying our own
products to foreign ports. At this
rate it is question of only a short
time when the American flag will dis
appear from the high seas For all this,
protection is almost the sole casue.
BY senseless navigation laws, by pro-
hibiting the registration of foreign
built ships, and By enhancing the price
of all materials which enter into ship
building, the protective system has ac-
complished this result.
But little less disastrous are its ef-
fects upon agriculture. Protection
increases the expenses of living 4S per
cent. to the farmer. 1t increases the
cost 40 per cent. of agricultural |
implements and most of the articles
required in husbandry. 1t curtails |
his forneign market for the high tariffs
on the continent of Europe and in
Canada, Mexico and the South
American states against our agricul,
tural products are avowedly main
tanned because of our high tariff
against them. Protection robs the
farmer of the fruits of his toll by en-
hancing the cost of transporting The
expense of building and operating
railroads is increased one-third
through the increase in cost of ma
terial which protection makes and the
cost of ocean transportation is nearly
doubled, because in most cases enough
must be charged in carrying from
New Y ork to Europe to pay for the
return voyage; and this because the
vessels on account of the tariff can not
bring pack cargo to sell her. 1t
must not be forgotten that the prices of
an exported bushel of American wheat
fixed at Liverpool where the American
farmer completes without protection
with every other farmer of the world.
That price is the result of that compe-
tition. Whatever, therefore, is saved in
the cost of transportation is saved as
profit to the farmer. Protection has
enhanced this cost, and has rob-
bed the farmer on every bush
81 of wheat exported of one-third
of the price it has cost to carry it
from the great West to Europe. An
other point should be remembered. 1t
is Englaud's free trade which gives us
a market for our surplus of agrIcul-
ture. Let that market be taken away,
and the harvests would rot ungathered
in the fields and the farmers would be
paupers in the midst of their own plen.
ty. Protection threatens that market.
This very day bitter contest is going
on in England between the free ira
ders and the fair traders, as they call
themselves The latter propose to re-
taliate with tariff upon the countries
which have tariff against England.
The proposition upon which they are
most united is to place a duty Of
cents on every bushel of American
wheat. The result Of this contest is
doubtful. II the free traders are bea.
ten the American farmers will, at
heavy cost, learn lesson of protection
which they would never have been
taught if free trade had been adopted
here. Agriculture is thus plundered
and embarrassed by protection and its
principal market put in danger.
And what have protectionists to say
to justify this death of our carrying
trade and this paralysis of agriculture?
The only reason urged is, that it is
necessary to build up domestic indus
tries in the direction of manufacturing
and pay high wages to American labor |
Even if protection did this, it would
be no excuse for the immense injury
it inhicts upon other industries. But
it does not do it. Its influence is as
banefnl upon manufacturing and labor
as it is upon commerce and agricul-