The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1882-10-19
4 VARIETY OF VIEWS.
Irui".."r summer. OF SrIr. I-,tur,, the.
TariT Gumnini.-ion.--as..


PHILADELPHIA, october H. AZ the
session Of the Tarin Commission To day
Prof Sumner, Of Yale College. New IIa-
ven, Conn, read paper on the relation
OF protective taxes Ia Wages. He APP
rchrrh a. professional student of IOlit
zeal economy and argued tina, pro,cr,it e
take, lowered wages. PrUl,riiy" tax.
dil not aim l. produce Gpou government
or to accomplish any evil purpose AT ali
their aim was Industrial ; they were
Planned to help some people 10 get a
living. Anything that lcsscnri the nam.
Dor Or persons competing for wages or
that increased th" amount OF capital, in
creased wages. IL Was impossible 10 raise
wages by opposing chcapnvss and abun-
dance. "A protective system lc,~cn"l
wealth ANA enhanced the cost Ui all ar
,irlcs pi clothing, furniture, crockciy,
utensils, tools and machinery. he he.
n!cd the allegation that protection brought
capital INTO use which would otherwise
be Idle, and asserted that the rate of va
yes obtained here Was due 10 the rcOno.
mic forces at work. There was only one
thing that could reduce American wages
/" European standards, and that was pro.
t"ctirc taxes applied long enough and
"ith sufficient weight. Mr.. sumner
wanted AL protective taxes abolished
and said il half the li-t OF dutiublc arti-
clcs were put on the free list and the du-
~ of the other half reduced - per cent
the revenue would rc doubled II more
revenue was wanted
Mr. kcmncr: Then understand that
ycu do not want To abolish custom du-
| tics. ] understood you t. say Just now
| that you would abolish ali taxes.
Sumner: All protective taxes
kcnncr: All import duties?
Sumner: did not say all import du.
| ties, not by any means. If you had du-
Ties on tea, coffee or pepper, they would
not be protective taxes. The tax on
wines might De Il protective tax. ON
sugar 1t is largely 4 revenue tax, but il is
| also protective tax in behalf Of Tie
Louisiana sugar growers. ! have no oh
Jcction to pay Il tax to the l'nite.l States
| treasury, but do object To- pay Il tax 10
| iho Lonisiana sugar grower, or 10 the
Pennsylvania iron man, or the ohio
wool man, or to anybody else.
| Arguments wcro also made hy Sainurl
a. Edgerly, of New York, against an
Increase OF duty on cotton ties; by A..
| III. ColIuitt, OF Atlanta, in favor OF an
increased duty on Spanish pirates; by
| George \. Potts, Of New Jersey, asking,
in tn" sorghum sugar interest, for The
| maintenance Of the existing duties on
| sugar; by Stockton Bates, of PhiIalel-
plia, and William a. Burke, OF Lowell,
Mass, in favor Of existing duties On cot
| ton AMI textile machinery.
During the session to-day, when Ken
1
| following dialngne took place:
| krnncr: Did not New England sup.
| p".. y" first tari!l hill signed by Wash
| inSton?
| sumner: No; Ncw England was free
| trade until after the tariff Of 1871
Kcnncr: Tho doctrine OF free trade is
one that was advocated in the South fifty
years.
Sumner: l hope tho South will stick to
| il.
kennor: 1t will not stick to it.
| Sumner: They are going to begin man
ufacturing there, to their very grca, loss
| Oliver: DO yon mean to the great loss
of the South ur of New England?
| Sumner; New England can stand it.
do not think il would be any loss tu the
| country ii there was no New England.
| krnncr: agree with yOl in tia, las;
| remark.
Sumner: And il would bc no loss to
tho country il there was no Louisiana,
| either.
kenner: Yes, it would be Wo tried
to- leave tho country and you would not
| let us 81, and now you say that Louisiana
would be no loss. That is Il NON Scytitu,
| which ! do not understand
| sumner: We should AL live here and
be happy, and get our living If there WAS
not any New England, or any Louisiana.
or any Pennsylvania
kcnner: You mean, suppose, ifthcrc
| wis no North anu no South. We have
heard enough OF shat