Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1883-02-07

and enriches the manufacturer ut the
expense Of the people, and the manu-
facturers are now represented at Wash
ington by powerful lobby who are
using every means to keep the occurs.
ed system alive.
The people of this country demand
reduction Of the protective tariff
taxes, but they do not ask that the
reduction shall be made at the ex-
pense of one or two States. They
want the reduction equalized through
out the country. If the tariff on
lumber and salt is to be removed,
then it is necessary that the tariff that
protects the manufactured goods of
the east and the sugar and rice of the
south should also be abolished. If
Michigan products have to compete
with the world for II market, then she
should have the privilege of buying
such goods as she needs in the mar
kets of the world, and not from the
protected monopolist market. 1t is
fair that the tariff on eastern manu-
featured goods and southern produc-
tions be reduced to the level Of the
tariff now imposed on lumber, before
the duty on lumber is lowered. In
this infamous tariff business, Michi-
gan has always got the worst of the
bargain.
IF the present low tariff on lumber
was removed, we do not think that it
would seriously effect the lumber
trade. There is too great demand
for lumber for it to be a drug on the
market, and the supply is limited.
The amount of lumber manufactured
in the northwestern States during the
year 1882 is given by the North
western Lumberman at 7,504,737 1854
feet, and the shingles at 1904, 277 ,65S.
This will show what the demand for
lumber is, and the demand is more
liable to increase than diminish. In
our opinion the present low tariff on
lumber acts more as tariff for rev.
enue than as a protective tariff. To
put Michigan lumber on an equal
basis with the protected products of
some other States, the tariff ought to
be high enough to prohibit imports.
OF course such system would add
an increased burden on the people,
just as do the present high protective
tariffs on sugar, rice, crockery, clothes,
leather, glass and many other neces-
sary articles.
About the only effect that remov-
ing the tariff on lumber would do,
would be to put the nearly eighteen
per cent. into the pockets of the Can
adam lumbermen, who are not at all
anxious to cut their lumber simply
for the benefit of the people of this
country.
The principal argument used by
the advocates of free lumber, is that
the forest products are limited and
that if the Canadian forests can be
drawn on, it will tend to lesson the
demand on the American forests and
prove of great benefit to this country.
Their real reason is that they think
they can get lumber for the people Of
New York and other eastern States,
a dollar or two cheaper per thousand
feet if the tariff is abolished, and they
also think that by stopping the rev.
enuc derived from the importation of
lumber, that there will be less danger
of the eastern tariffs being much re-
duced. Let it be remembered that
these eastern people, as mainly re-
presented in Congress, are the big
est beggars in the country-always
begging Congress to pass tariff laws
that will prohibit goods of other coun-
tries from entering into competition
with their manufactures. Their greed
and selfshness is largely developed !;
they think the whole country must
pay tribute to them, and they seem to
believe that the whole country was
made for their particular benefit.
Now. why should Michigan pro-
ducts be unprotected, while the pro-
ducts of the east and south are heav-
lily protected? Why should not the
people of the east and south be forced
to pay an increased price for the fish,
lumber and salt of Michigan, when
the people of Michigan are forced to
pay an increased price for the pro-
ducts of other States. 1t is a poor
rule that will not work both ways.
These eastern manufacturers and
southern producers have protective
tariff of from 40 to 105 per cent. in
their favor, but they demonstrate
against not quite eighteen per cent.
on lumber. They seem to think they
can satisfy the popular and just de-
mand for reduction of taxation by
making lumber free, and they have
the impudence to say that in doing
so they are comforting benefits on the
lumbermen. That is the monopolist