Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-01-18

The Chattanooga Times protests that it
"neUer favored duty on quinine." This be-
ing the case, we must acknowledge we have,
on several occasions, very much misunder-
stood expressions upon the subject we have
seen in its columns. We are glad to know
that the discreditable, inhuman quinine
blood tax has one advocate fewer than We
supposed, and that Tennessee protectionist
paper vehemently clears its skirts OF the in
iquity. We welcome the disclaimer the
more, because with equal vehemence the
Times enters the ranks of tariff reformers by
calling, almost exciledly, for an abandon
ment of protective principles in the case OF
cinehona bark, and for its admission free of
duty. 1t talks like a sound free-trader
when it expresses indignation that the bark
was not freed from taxation when quiniue
was, and it reproaches those who, it sage,
"never raised whisper in favor OF giving
our own makers OF quinine fair play and
equal chance with foreign concerns, by Civ
ing ours their materials free of duty, which
the others enjoy" This is excellent, and is
exactly in the strain the friends of free ships
talk when they demand free material to
build ships with. This principle of releas-
ing from taxation, or inficting only low
tax, upon material used in manufactures, is
correct and important one. That principle
is not restricted TO cinchona bark, although
it includes ii; we see its necessity in such an
article as tin, for instance, where it is an in
dispeusable material in making domestic
tinware, and in the packing cans used
for putting up fish, fruits and meats. To
the cotton. planter the iron tie is a necessary
material, and we say, in the IInes's mode OF
expression: "Give our cotton-growers fair
play, an equal chance with foreign con-
Germs, by giving ours their materials free OF
duty.n With such words in its columns,
how can paper that demands free trade for
cinchona bark so strenuously contend against
free trade in the case of iron ties? But let
us make sure of not being mistaken in this
instance, as we are informed we were with
respect to quinine. The Chattanooga Times
doubling the cotton-tie duty to be "poppy-
cock" whatever that means. 1t accused the
cotton mer of being $50 green as to really
believe they are getting ties now for less than
they would get them under the revenue If
amended as proposed. Southern
planters want all the turkey, apps-
rently, and are willing the rest of the
country should regale itself on buzzard."
These quotations insure our being right this
time, we think. Here we have paper ex-
claiming vehemently for the admission Of
material for the use of American produc-
lions when quinine is in question, but it gets
vulgar and talks of "poppycoek" when the
cotton.grower's interest ia discussed. II is
like the deacon who believed in doing right
when it does not cost too much; it is willing
10 do right as far as the material Of quinine
is concerned, but when the material Of a cot
ton bale is in question then right costs too
much, because the Times, being published
in an iron manufacturing town, must
stand up for all the tax that can be got on
anything made Of iron. However, consistency
cannot be looked for from protectionists;
their whole system is an opposition TO nat
ural arrangements, is built upon fallscy.
denies that to buy where you can buy cheap
est and sell where you can sell dearest to be
a sound commercial maxim, and therefore 10
claim free admission for acomponent OF qui'
nine, and oppose free admission for compo'
nent Of cotton bale, is an inconsistency al
inevitable as it is illogical and stupid.
.