The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1884-06-21
LOW TARIFF.

EDITORS OF HE COMET Il do III
sist that tariff for protection benefits
no one but the manufacturer. also
insist that this same protective tariff.
in many instances, has caused over
production and resulted in disaster to
the manufacturer. The same tariff
that protects the American manuiact-
urer from foreign competition at the
expense OF the home consumers, will
necessarily have the effect of keeping
American goods from foreign markets.
Ii the American manufacturer cannot
survive at home and compete with
the foreigner certain it is that he cam
not survive ii he has to go to the ud-
ditional eXpcnce of shipping his goods
abroad. Nor will any sane man sup
pose for moment that the foreign
country will not retaliate upon us 10y
IL tariff on American goods, for the
tariff We impose upon them. 1t vii!
thus be seen that protected articles
that are manufactured in America
must be sold in America or 90 unsoId,
and result in very often Il glutted
market from overproduction, and ruin
to the manufacturer. 1t is but an
other instance whore avarice over
leaps itself, and in its attempt to rob
others OF their possessions, looScs It's
own.
have already shown that the re-
suit of protection is to exclude Amer
can manufacturers from the markets
Of the world, and this is shown not
only by our country's history but by
the position assumed by Protection"
and if his dollhouse arguments can be
swept away at a breath, it only an
CUES that protective tariff is ground
ed in sand and must crumble and
perish in the advancing light of civil
ization. 4ff
Protection" thinks he has shot his
arrowover the house and hit somebody
on the Johnson City tannery question
But let us see ifhe has, Thosewhomye
had the patience to read his articles
will remember that he attributed the
building of the tannery to a protec-
tive tariff. He then asked with crush
ing mein: "Would the farmers near
there have it taken away? Are the
laborors there tired of it? Do the
merchants think it nuisance? Does
any one want it ruined?" We an.
swered the apparent or rather the
transparent arguments by telling him
the tariff on beef hides was the worst
enemy of the tannery. When sewed
up by this fact he attemps to escape
from it by going back upon what he
had previously said, and asserting
that beef hides were ON the free list
If there is no tariff on hides, what has
the tariff to do with the tanneryi
What was your argument on the tan
merry worth without a tariff on hidesi
Why did you ask all of those ques.
tons? Is somebody else not a "min
lister OF thy English manufacturer,
tryingto "impose on the peoples"
| have not investigated to find out
whether or not beef hides are now OF
the free list ! merely assumed that
they were protected from ''Protec
TONS" statement that the tannery
owed its existence to a protective tar
if. Ii they are not protected, the ar
gument is all the strongeragainst him
We know that few years ago there
was duty on beef hides and if it ha,
since been taken off it but demon
strates the fact that such tariff was
an enemy and foe to American tan
neries. The very fact that the tan
merry at Johnson City and Others
4. throughout the South have sprung
up since the abolition of the tariff Oh
hides, is, to my mind. tremendous
argument against protection. PRO
lection is gored by either horn o
the dilemma If there is duty OF
beef hides the duty is an enemy to tn,