The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-10-12
Hon. John Hancock and the
Tariff Fight.
TDallaa Harold

1t seems that Judge John Han
cock, Democratic nominee for con-
gress from the tenth district, is not
pleasing all Democratic auditors.
There a great many wool-growers
in that section of the state, and their
heads have gone wool-gatheriDg in
the shades of tariff sophisms that
upset Mr.. Dan Voorhees, some time
since, and who afterwards tried to
slide out of his faux-pas on the rail
of that impossible duality known as
"tariff for revenue with incidental
protection" as if there could be such
a thing. IL is true these sheep rails
ers have some ground for argument
in demanding tariff on foreign
WOODS, since if the wooden man
ufacturer has such protection they,
too, should have it. If one
set of people are allowed to rob, an
other set should also be. 1t would
be difficult for anyone to detect the
falsity of this logic, tor the premise
admitted the conclusion must fol-
low. If the manufacturers have
purchased the right to pluck the peo-
pie. why should not the producers of
the raw material they use have the
idential permission The trouble is
the whole system is vicious, unjust
and disgracefnl in this enlightened
age and supposed free country of
equitable laws. The question has
resolved itself into one of Hobbies,
of influence, of bribery direct or in
direct. The wooden manufacturers,
for example, have to pay consider
able duty on foreign woods, a high
duty on foreign machinery, an enor-
nous tax for protection on every
pound they use, and thousands of
dollars to delegations kept in Wash
ington city. Abolish protection,
and there will be relief all around,
especially to the millions of consum-
ers. Let us look at this by an illus
tration of wool hats. Assume that
So apiece is laid on foreign hats,
and that the home market is one
half supplied through home produc-
ton, the market taking 100000
hats. Thus $10,O00,000 are paid by
consumers just to encourage hat
making by few hundred in this
country. Is not this an in
EQUITY? Yet, because they and
some few hundred others in
the wooden manufacturing bust
ness have protection, the raw ma
terial men insist that they must have
1t. And then the machinery men
must have it through the same argu-
ment. And SO, too, the iron miner
must have it, and so on ad infinitum.
But the poor farmer must pay all
these in the buying of his instru-
ments and tools and implements,
| while he is left out in the role of the
beautiful protection business, as his
wheat and other grain and cotton
have no manner of such aid, for their
values are assessed in foreign
ports. No, this thing of pro-
| lection is an infamous wrong, be-
cause, first, it is no part Of the
proper province of government to
undertake to redistribute the re-
wards of industry, every man hav-
ing the right to the returns from his
own toll; second, because it is
matter of finesse, for if all interests
were projected" and protected
alike, the issue of all the dlstribu-
tioDs and redistributions would be
that all would stand relatively as
before, but worse off by the
losses of the processes which
are wasteful way to reach the end
ostensibly proposed. Because, third,
it gives birth to smuggling and
all other frauds upon the
revenue. Because, fourth, it in
PRODUCES and fosters antago-
nism between the different in
terests OF the country, just as ex-
amplied in the wool interests above
named. Because, fifth, it gives ali
unnatural stimulus and leads to
over-production, stagnation and
failure, extending promise it never
redeems. Because, sixth, it dimlnishes
the legitimate revenues of the gov
eminent whilst it levies its heavy
tax on the people. Because, SEVENTH it
tends to demOralize and corrupt the
national legislation where purity
should prevail. Each and every one