Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-12-19

ton. TIE clearly expressed desire OF
the people for tariff reform is a sorrowful
revelation to them. At the time when
tariff revision was under consideration in
: Congress, the ~monopolists were loud and
imperative in their demands, and SO pow
erful were they in that Congress that, dis
regarding the popular will, they actually
increased the tariff upon certain descrip-
tons of merchandise. Since then the
popular feeling has expressed itself IN a
manner not to be mistaken, and high
tariff people find themselves in difficulty
in consequence. To relieve the pressure
which threatens to overwhelm them, and
which has already silenced their eager
cries for "More, MORE" the high-tariff
people are trying the course OF policy
known as 'throwing dust in the eyes" of
the people. The protective journals
are endeaVoring to dc this by persuading
their readers that "tariff reform" is a
sham cry, and that the real object Of these
who raise it is to convulse the whole bust
ness OF the country, by wiping out at a
blow the entire protective policy, and by
instantaneously establishing free trade, to
wreck and ruin those who have put their
capital into establishments that depend
for profit, not on the ordinary profits of a
demand and supply trade, but from con-
tributions drawn from their fellow-citiZens
in the shape of axes. This course of pro-
ceeding shows how much the protection
lists of extreme views desire that the tariff
reformers should ASSUME the reckless, I'M
calculating policy they are so anxious to
fasten upon them. The reformers, how
ever, are not so wanting in prudence and
common sense as to DEFY consequence
and invite confusion and induce
bankruptcy, in the way their &C.
cusers are %attributing to them. The
EXTREMIST free-trader knows that, however
excellent his principles may be as a mat
ter of sound trading, they cannot be ap-
piled in a country where protection has
encouraged the establishment OF indus
tries depending for profit upon that sys-
tenn, in the same way as in a country
where no such system has existed. Where
protection exists the frec-trader knows
that his favorite system cannot succeed it
at a leap, regardless of consequences. As
the APPEAL long ago pointed out, the pro-
tective system in trade is like the hot
house cultivation of the gardener, TO take
the growth Of the .hot-house and trans
plant at ence into the open air, would not
be reform, but destruction. The tariff re-
former, therefore, desires to go to work in
a conservative spirit, to make such grad
ual changes as shall do away with
abuses; TO permit raw materials
that viii give labor to American
worImen TO be imported at rates
that will encourage, not prohibit such la
Dor; to do away with such extortions as
render n set of industrial people en-
forced contributors to the support Of an
other, as when the cottoh-grower is COM
PEELED to pay the high tax upon the iron
ties he uses for the benefit of the manu-
facturer of iron. That there are many
ways in which the protective system can
be so modified, not at a jump to the extent
Of free trade, but in the direction of free
trade as the opposite of protection-is evil
dent. As lar as this change is made, the
result of each change will show how far it
is beneficial to the country, and will thus
indicate the direction in which other
changes should be made. So TO tax ship
building material and to discourage the
purchase of foreign-built shipping as to
stop the carrying trade of the United
States, is clearly an evil, and one for
which the protectionist system is
responsible. A plan which should restore
our carrying trade, and send the American
flag into every port on the globe, would
be an immense advantage to American
commerce. The change made would nee
essarily be from the direction where pro-
lection reigns and touard the direction OF
fee trade. To make such a change pru-
Identity and i~ntelligently would not be es-
tablishing recklessly, in defiance of con-
sequences, a complete free-trade system.
This necessary direction of a reform that
would restore our American trade the
ultra-protectionist is e~ndeavoring to dis
tort into an intentional assault upon
American capital and American labor.
Evidently any such Misrepresentation is
unjust. A change that would raise up an
American industry once Furnishing, al
though a change not in the direction of
what is falsely called protection, would be
a change in the direction of free trade,
and yet would be not a sham pro-
lection but a real one, as it
would give back to us an immense source
OF wealth-that monopoly has robbed us of.
Where protection does not protect it in
Jures. To remsve the injury is not a
reckless destruction of trade and of the
prosperity Of American workmen. On the
contrary, it is conservative ofboth. Judi
cious tariff reform is therefore desirable for
the country, however inimical it may be
to monopoly, and the attempt of the
graspmg portion of the protectionists to
confound such reform with extreme meas
ures that, however desirable under other
circumstances, would be reckless and
damaging under the actual circumstances
OF to-day, is unfounded and intended 10
confuse and mislead. Tariff reform has
the Improvement of our commerce for one
OF its objects, not the improvement of the
fortunes OF monopolists that are but para
sites, who live by preying upon their fell
low-citizens, and that is why monopolists
oppose and misrepresent it.
Ip.purNc 10 cooL- roys in Enclo,l M