New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-01-04
FREE TRADE OPPOSITION.

Mr. J. S. Moore has been widely known for ten
years or more as one of the ablest, If not the
abest, opponent of the Protective system In
this country. He has furnished the brains for
more Free Trade writings, speeches and bills
than any other man in the United States, and
has never been suspected Of being ashamed OF
his convictions If he has at any time been
converted from Free Trade convictions, he has
done himself irreparable injustice by conceal
ing the change completely. In referring to
him, therefore, as prominent Free Trader who
was cOnspicuously active in opposing the bill
proposed by the Tariff Commission, we repre-
sented him as the country has known him.
But Mr. Moore seems to think this mention 30
far unjust that it calls for reply, In which he
asks, @Am really a Free Trader 7" He then
proceeds to show that the bill which he sue-
gested to commission composed almost wholly
of Protectionists was not an extreme Free Trade
measure. 1t Will be seen that this proves
nothing. HIS aim then, If he was still the sim
cere Free Trader that he has always appeared
to be, ought to have been to suggest only such
changes as he might hope to get adopted. If
rank Communist begs en- the street, he is none
the less Communist though he asks for ten
cents, and not for an equal division OF all
property.
Mr.. Moore did nevertheless propose changes
which, if adopted, would have broken the back
of the Protective system. Nor were these so
concealed that the Commission did not detect
their tendency. 1t was as much their duty to
reject such changes as it was his, from the
standpoint O IN extreme Free Trader, to get the
system broken down II he could. The present
trouble is that Mr.. Moore seems inclined to have
the public suppose that he Ia not now Free
Trader because he did not propose Free Trade
tariff His proposal TO make raw materials free,
he now defends as really in favor of the man.
ufacturers.n But Mr.. Moore is not so ignorant
as he here seems lie ut least knows, il some
others do not, that the aim of tho Protective
system is to favor, not the manufacturers alone,
but all American labor-that of the mine and
the farm as we'll as that of the factory.
According to his letter given elsewhere, Mr..
Moore -" aims ut simplifcation." So does The
TRIBUNE and it has heartily commended the
work of the Tariff Commission because it is a
long step in that direction. But Mr.. Moore
thinks that it does not go far enough, and,
being particularly disturbed by the duty on
wool, which Free Traders wish to make free in
order to ALLEVIATE the farmers from the system,
he proceeds to denOunce as trick" change
of classification proposed by the Commission.
THE TRIBUNE will not follow HIM in the use of
abusive phrases, and therefore will not call his
present endeavor mere trick to break down a
tariff while pretending to seek only helpful mod
iications of it. Nor has it claimed at any time
that the proposed tariff is perfect. Neither In
nor in rate of duties proposed is
il exactly what we should like. 1t does not suit
Mr.. Moore either. But it was not intended to
suit any extreme Free Trader, nor to suit any
Protectionlst, and, being the work
of human hands, could not DO expected 10 meet
in every particular all reasonable demands 1t
is fair ana just compromise between men who
want substantial reduction of duties and great
smpihcations of the tariff but do not agree ms to
I.ll details. and approach the subject from quite
opposite points. As such compromise. We
think it deserves substantial approval. If Mr,
Moore does not think so, he has a right to his
opinion, but we question his right to pass him
self off as not I" really Free Trader" but only |
a man who "ainis at smpli6cation." The |
country is q LITTLE toe we'll informed TO be de- |
uded In that manner.