Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1883-09-25
a Rejoinder.
Editor Spirit of /,

prove them!"
sLittle Massachusetts," in your
paper dated Sept. 4th, answers the
criticism of /" Young Democrat on
the tariff plank of the platforms of the
Virginia and Ohio Conventions, by an
affirmation that this g very plank rep
resents the true principle of the De-
mocracy from its creation to the
present time.'' I attempted to show
in my former article, that this plank
contained no principle at all, and far
less a principle of the Grand Old
Democratic party, but was q compro-
mise of principle.
Little Massachusetts misunder-
stands my former article entirely, if
he supposes for one instant it meant
to convey any such idea as that the
platforms of the Virginia and Ohio
conventions, on the tariff question,
were a mere frightening of the prin-
ciple, tariff for revenue only. On
the contrary, these platforms are in
consistent with and opposed to the
principle tariff for revenue only, or
to any principle, and arc mere COM
promise, and this I thought had
made plain in my former article.
Now, "Little Massachusetts - APP
pears to be an expert at definitions,
but he seems to me to have fallen into
the error of great many protection
lists, of giving in his practical example
an example of monopoly, and not of
tariff at all. This may be shown to
be plain by simple reference to the
definitions of tariff and of monopoly.
A tariff is properly " a list or table of
goods with the duties or customs to
be paid upon the same" Now, hav-
ing reference to this definition. it will
be seen that the example of Little
Massachusetts of the effect on the
wooden industry of the protection af-
forded by the tariff laws, is not an
example of tariff, for tariff is n sys-
ten, schedule of duties, and it is
incumbent on its advocates to show
not that in particular examples it is
beneficial to n class, but whether rs a
system it is of benefit to the whole
people.
The definition of monopoly is the
exclusive right to scll.'' Now, if
according to ''Little Massachusetts,"
wool can be raised in Australia
cheaper than in the United States.
does not the protection of the wool
producer by tariff laws, create mo-
mopoly in his favor as against the
ac0olen manufacturer of the United
States, whose interest it is to obtain
wool as cheap as possible, in order to
compete with the Australian wooden
manufacturer and the wooden manu-
facturer of other countries, whose
duties on the importation of wool is
not so high. Further, is not the wool
producer thus made a monopoIist as
to every consumer of wool in any
manufactured form.
Now let us, by proper example,
sec how the protective tariff system
does work. promising that wherever
the object revenue is lost sight of, the
system becomes protective to high
or low degree, according to the duties
laid. The average duty on all duti-
able goods has been nearly so per
cent, and it requires but common
school arithmetic to show that if there
be an equable annual consumption of
any article, this protection of fifty
per cent. continuing for eighteen
years would amount to sum which,
at six per cent, would furnish the
nation in the article to the end of
time, without ever paying any more
for it.
1t is to such extremes as this that
protection will carry you in the dis
erection of Congress, and therefore L
regret to sec the Democrats abandon
ing the principle ga tariff for rev.
enue only" and committing them
selves to any other course that must
necessarily introduce an internccine
strife of interests, tariff for revenue
only, and advocating protection.
Now 1 would not commit myself to
Free Trade, though not for the reason
assigned by "Little Massachusetts, :"
that "thcrc must be reciprocity of
action" for 1 cannot see why coun-
try cannot be frcc-trader without
such "reciprocity,'' but for the bet
ter reason that it would create an
army of Federal assessors, and in
crease to an alarming degree the
power of the Federal Government,
and therefore as we must, as choice
of evils, choose tariff, let it be a ta-
riff for revenue only, with as little in
cidental protection as possible, and
not tariff {" to encourage produc-
tive interests at home," and thereby
foster monopolics.
IS Little Massachusetts - forgcts
that the laborer is a consumer, and
that if nominalIy his wages are in
creased by protection of a partic-
ular home industry, the one in which
he is employed really, they are not so
if the expenses of living is so in
creased by the operation of the tariff
system, that the purchasing power of
his wages is decreased, for in the end
his wages are high or low according
as he can buy much or little with
them.
'Little Massachusetts, - while re-
commencing regeneration and anew
baptising to " Young Democrat"
may retain lis principles aud name,
but we would advise that he sign sim
| ply Massachusetts" and leave off