Semi-weekly interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1881-1905, 1882-05-05
TEE rfRifr QUESTION

That absolute Tree trade ~ right,
and 10 accordance with the "eternal
fitness Of things" rs we'll as the best
doctrines Of political economy, and
that protection by tariff taxation 10
any extent, no matter how limited, is
robbery-robbery Of the consumer 10
enrich the manufacturer. II Is a max.
i'm Of theirs that all men should be
permitted 10 buy where they can buy
cheapest, and that any legislation
tending TO prevent this is communistic
10 its effect. They are In favor Of n
tariff levied exclusively for raising the
necessary revenue, "a tariff for reve
nue. only, as they phrase il, and mas
much as n tariff, though restricted TO
that purpose, must unavoidably afford
some protection, they only tolerate il
because IL is observation-disclosures il
as a necessary incidental evil. If il
was possible, they say, to raise the re-
quisiie amount Of revenue by duties
on imports without the slightest pro.
lection to any American industry they
would adjust the duty in that way,
aud thus avoid what they are pleased
10 term legalized robbery. .IoI
They further oppose any protective
legislation rs impolitic, claiming that
the effect Of il is TO lose TO US the mar.
kets Of foreign countries for our prod
ucts. They insist that our protective
laws exclude from our ports the prod
ucts of certain countries and thereby
prevent the people Of those countries
from buying our products, they being
unwilling TO exchange commodities
with us except upon equal terms-that
is, they will not buy from US because
we will not let them sell TO US without
paying ajax foi the privilege of do.
ing so.
Now, if free trade is the true doc.
trine, and the only true doctrine-if
protection, even though incidental or
accidental, is robbery and commun.
ism. in the name OF consistency, why
do not these statesmen declare for free
trader What Is in the way to prevent
the establishment and enforcement OF
the tree trade principle in this coun.
tryl There is n constitutional oh
lection To it. The government has ITS
choice between raising the needed rev.
enue by duties on imports or by direct
taxes. Is il possible that these clear
headed aud iust.minded statesmen,
these superior beings who are 50 horri-
fed at the idea of helping one class at
the expense Of another, and who cant
bear the thought Of seeing the faintest
shadow OF injustice done TO any body
these men whose ideas Of moral rec
titude are so superhumanly sublime
is it possible that they choose protec
lion, robbery aud all in preference to
direct taxes because Il as populdri We
all know that proposition TO raise
the national revenue by direct taxa
ton would meet almost unanimous OPP
position, and the free traders them.
selves say they do not favor it, yet as
their doctrine logically leads to it, tn e
only inference to be drawn from their
refusal to spouse it, Is the fact that il
wouldn't charm the dear people to any
appreciable extent.
Is tariff protection robbery? Ii is
true that by reason of the duty upon
any given article of foreign produc-
ton. the price Of that article is made
higher to the consumer than il would
be without the duty; and it is also true
that by reason such duty the home pro.
Queer or manufacturer is enabled TO sell
his commodity higher than he could
otherwise do. Now, this at asuper6cial
glance, looks like injustice -loOoks like
bene6ting one class at the expense of
another; and demagogues, taking ad-
vantage of this apparent unjust dis
elimination, mislead many into the
belief that the government is actually
and purposely robbing one class of its
citizens for the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of an
other class. This is a deception, an
illusion, arising from the false idea
that our people are divided into two
separate, distinct and independent
classes, viz The consumers aud pro-
duoers. The truth is, all are consum-
ers, and nearly all are producers-un
fortunately we have some drones and
some sharpers who produce nothing
and prey upon the fruits of honest
mems hbors. The manufacturer of
clothing, for instance-whether he be
the proprietor OF the factory or the
operator in it-has to wear clothing
and has to pay for it, tariff aud all,
Just as the farmer does. And the
same is true OF every other manufac
turing industry. We all. aud all alike,
pay more for goods because of the
tariff So, If anybody is robbed, all
are robbed by this means. Therefore.
it is not n robbery of one sect for the
advantage Of another sect Conceding
for argument sake that the people of
the United States could, ia the ab
sence Of the tariff. buy all their maui.
iactured articles-every thing they
need-in Europe 100 per cent cheap
er than they now pay; would il be ad
visable to do so if thereby all enter
prises Of that kind in the United
States should be annihilaied? Would
any statesman advise that our people
should absolutely cease to manufacture
aud cease TO do every thing except
farming and trading and banking,
and thus become entirely dependent
upon foreign countries for all our
clothing, all our farming implements