National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-03-25
HIGH TARIFF vs.. FREE TRADE.
TO he Editor.


You having recently, as l understood it,
proiIered the use of your columns to such OF
the high tariff democrats as might wish to
discuss the tariff question, | desire a brief
space, and especially a there is TO be n demo-
cratic caucus Tuesday evening for the pur-
pose, it seems, of pouring oil on the troubled
waters.
That there should he any division in the
democratic ranks as to the policy to be pur-
sued in reference to tho tariff question is q
mystery to me. The simple fact that labor
in this country is from two and q half to
three times higher than it is in Europe ought
alone to be sufficient argument in favor of
high protective tariff, and even if tho tariff
on such articles as we have the raw mate
rial in abundance to produce such as
cotton, wooden and iron goods, be sufficiently
high, both on the raw material and manu-
featured articles to amount to u prohibition,
so much the better. Such policy might for
n whilo cause the goods thus protected to be
high, but competition would eventually bring
them down sufficiently low. l will cite a
case:
about Ia cents. The crop of 1850 was about
double that of 1910, but the average price
procured was only about s cents
Another case: The Hon. A. S. Hewitt, in
q speech delivered in the house of representa-
tives March 20, $780, said that the profits of
manufacturers of Bessemer steel were from
fifteen to twenty times as great as where the
same amount of capital was paid out for
labor in the manufacture of iron. But now.
the profits of steel works arc about the same
ne those of iron works.
In like manner, if manufactures be pro-
teCted by means of high tariff, competition
would eventually bring their poducts down
to q price sufficiently low
low tariff means cheap manufactured
ID Obj. lab. aln fnV n
a stagnation Of business generally. Instead
of this, our tariff laws should be such as will
discriminate as much as possible in favor of
the poor and debtor classes, even ii they do
have to pay some higher for the necessaries
of life, that does not matter SO long as they
have steady employment at high wages.
A reduction of tariff revenues is impera-
lively needed. There are two ways by which
this can be done.
The first is to raise the tariff on few lead
ing articles than we can manufacture in
abundance, without aid from abroad. suf-
fciently high to practically amount to pro-
hibition.
The second is to lower tho tariff. This is
at best II very uncertain way of reducing the
revenues; for this plan would increase the
impOrtations and it might be necessary to
lower several times before the proper stand
ard could DO reached, and in the meantime
the increase of imports would have a. ten
dency to cripple and ruin our manufacturing
industries.
But if we select few leading articles, and
exclude them entirely from the country by
the means aforesaid, We know precisely what
we are doing, and can reduce the tariff rove.
nue. to any desired amount.
The Morrison bill favors the reduction of
tariff revenue by the uncertain method of
lowering the tariff The adoption of this
plan would, doubtless, eventually entail much
damage on the community at large, and
should, therefore, be earnestly opposed by
the protectionists in congress by all honor
able means in their power without regard to
political parties, for all parties are, or should
be, alike interested in the matter The dis
sention in the democratic ranks was none Of
our seeking. 1t was forced on us by reason
Of mismanagement in congress. With the
preponderance of arguments in our favor we
are now asked to surrender to the Watterson
wing and make our obeisance to free trade
proclivities generally? VIII this be done
Let us see? HIGH TARIFF DEMoCRAT.
WASHINGTON, March 81.