The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1883-05-03

tA" hstb sNr~F t"A~F"@ wv wv ttNs'
political parties Of ths cert general cleo.
sior stli t1 the sasn qassiaoa. The great
msyoust AZ the nem acrsis are either ou'
ssA 1ai srns traders az sof mfia iof res.
euse sniy, shilc tDesi ~ The RepntlioAss
l.slifse 10 tariff ioF the protection 81 our
kosn iaduaries While ihsFo can bc ~
mistake 10 regard 20 shai free trade o.
protection Desas. there seems 10 be great
dssi u fog snveloplng The mesBlas 81 the
term. ''i4ris 10 revenue Practically we
believe thar tariff faF revenpr" means
free trade pure sna simple Englsnd u a
free trade nslion and SCENTS At the remoi
csi idea u protective TARA Indeed. that
government sieuily msintsins that a pro.
teeiire tariff Is a damag. and hinlranee
10 the prosperity ~ any na,ioa. the unli
ed Sis,cs among the rest, sad yet Enelsnd
believes IN aad inposrs lsrid for rere-
nae Il IL ~. cAllei ny that name there,
hai il Is the same thing pure and simple
IN other words. England taxes heavily The
importation Of great many articles.
mes, o. them lniuries. and many Of them
DO, produced at home. or IL produced
there a, all. in such small quantities as by
no means 10 supply the demand.
Our country could get its revenue ia the
same manner. and thus afford no protec-
iion whatever 10 our own productions.
THIS Is practically free trade, and il is Ger.
taiuly tariff for revenue. The protec.
iionists believe that while the revenue to
supper, the government should mainly be
produced by The tariff, the duties should
be 80 imposed that protection shall be af'
forled 10 our agriculture. mining and
manufactures In other words, they be.
hese protective tariff 10 be beneficial,
Will. free traders aud tariff for revenue
advocates believe such tariff detrimental
IL the coming contest II will be we'll to
bear in mind this distinction and TO sup.
port the party that will be likely TO best
maintain the interests OF the country as we
understand them. No confusion OF terms
ought To blind our eyes and lead us to
support party which We, understanding
their principles, believe TO be radically
wrong. As specimen OF what some OF
the free trade journals are doing in the
way OF "enligli,ening' the people We
quote the following: Prof Perry OF vii.
Hams college, Americas greatest econo.
mist. says that our protective tarih has
cost us 10 twenty years Sl2. ZOO, 600, 900 in
gold, over aud above what revenue tariff
would have cost us; that this is three
times MS much as the war cost us; and all
this money il worse than wasted. This
would be $1,000 TO every average family.
J. 5. Moore. an expert and successful
business man. estimates the present loss
at 81. 900. O00, 900 a year. Ii this moi worth
looking al,er2" In the same paper and i'm
following the above paragraph
comes the statement that, During the
past nine months the dry goods imported
into the United States exceeded 2l05, 000,.
900. which is larger amount than has
been imported 10 the same period OF time
since 1872, or at the same rate for the
whole year 1t would make the total i'm.
ports OF dry goods not less than $3.50, O0O,-
300 Ifthere had been no tariff these goods
would have cost our people less by
s50, 600, 600 Were there no duties on iron
spd steel, our people might save rs much
more on those articles or 800, 000. 900 In
III, aud this includes the most that would
be saved, or only about one tenth as much
rs the above paragraph chims.
But in reality there would be no saving,
or the money TO pay the expenses OF gov I
must be raised, il not by pro
ective tariff, then in some other way.
The one hundred millions would have TO
% raised by direct tax il no duties were
collected What saving would there be
n that?
Then again. there would be loss which Z,
10 man can compute. Our forges and {
would cease to run because
ye could not compete with the reduced ,
,rices produced by free trade. Should l
hey cease, our farmers would lose their ,
,est market for their produce. Business :
4 all kinds would come to dead halt I
What money could be rak ell AMI scraped {
would he sent out Of the country to pro ,
ure goods aud products which could not I
,e made at home, because our workmen ,
Iould not consent TO work for the starva-
ion wages which the over crowded mil :
ions Of Europe are willing to work for
d 4 ort. We wonll become almost exclu
i,el, a nation Of aglicultuflsts, iaislug
mr. own food aud carving unr surplus to
distant market acruss the ocean 10 pro !
me tire other nrres,aries oi lie. We 4
onl,i i've Their j. no question about
hat. But the lie aud business energy
4 The nation wonld sadly degenerate. 3
uiItsHS.
Mr.. CIarissa Utley who died suddenly /
( paralssls OF tile heart at her late resi-. 1
enes In Manchester April Z, was the Il
anphier Of the late Daniel Bebee Of Sand
ate SIZE WAS born III 1909. and died in
be seveniy.iiith year Of her life. She re- e
,ain-d at home until at % she was united \
4 marriage to stephen Utley OF Factory v