The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1884-04-03

The undersigned, dissenting from the views
Of The majority Of the Committee on the Tariff
Dill beg leave to present the following obiec-
tion> to its passage: The last Congress made
general revision of the tariff. securing import
ant reductions of the duties upon imports. In
few eases the reductions We're below the point
OF necessity or wisdom; and i'll other eases, as
was believed, touched the lowest limit of safe
/ ~. There had been no general revision of the
tariff laws since lS64-5 These laws had been
left practically undisturbed for nineteen years.
and there was manifest necessity for 4 rcVi>-
! Ion, Whlle new Considerations were required to
meet the changed condition of business. Every
effort from 1864 TO lSo3 at full revision of the
| tariff laws proved Il failure. Some changes
were made during that period, but no full and
comprehensive revision accomplished
FINALLY III response to the general sentiment of
the country. the NLNIIth Congress, at il, first
session, created Tariff Commission to inNe>ti-
gate the whole subject and report a basis for Il
4 revision. This Commission, composed of prac-
teal men, after the fullest study Of the subject
/ ealing TO their aid representatives of all inter
esfs and all views, made Il recommendation for
a revision of the tariff, which, with some inn
portant changes. was adopted March 3, 1883.
HE law Went into effect July |. 1855. and
/ mas, therefore, been in operation about eight
months TOO short Il time to have given it Il
s1fbclent practical test. Its effect upon either
the revenues or the business of the country
cannot Yet be ascertained determined; it
should nave Il fair trial, and its results be fairly
known before we enter upon the subject again.
/ he reduction proposed by the bill now under
consideration is 20 per cent. and it is a note
worthy fact that not single interest in the |
United States has asked for it-neher the (
manufacturer, the miner, the labUrer. the farm
er. nor the consumer has requested or demand 4
ed the proposed reduction. On The contrary
every interest, manufacturing. laboring and
agricultural represented before the Committee /
of Ways and Means, has protested most earn
estiy against the change recommended by Il |
m of fIa N, Ia.
no interest has asked for it. We should have /
excepted the free trade clubs of New York and .
Brooklyn, which were represented before the
Committee by number of so-caed political |
economists, urging, not this reduction alone.
but the entire abolition of import duties, which /
IN any way discriminate in favor of American
producers, and favoring this proposition be-
cause if is a step in the direction of absolute
free trade; declaring their preference for the
collection of the revenues of the Government
by direct taxation of the domestic products and
duties upon commodities that cannot be pro-
duced in this country, such as tea and coffee.
with these exceptions. every interest in this
country has spoken with the strongest emphasis
IN opposition to the bill.
While all unite in opposition TO any reduc-
tl0n, some interests assert the necessity of an
increase of duties for the actual maintenance of
the industry and the labor employed therein.
The wool growers of the country, representing
every State in the Union demand the restora-
ton OF the wool duty of 1867. The undersign-
ed have sought to respond favorably to this de-
mand OF more than a million of our fellow citi-
Zens, representing the agriculture of the coun-
try, but have been overruled. The opponents
of our views, not content with refusal to ac-
cede to the request of this large class of pro-
ducers for an increase of duties, deliberately
propose to reduce the duties still lower. Against
this we enter "A most earnest protest. While
we do not believe it proper at this time, for
reasons before given, to enter upon a fresh re-
vision OF the tariff, there some inequalities
found in the present law, which it would be
only just to correct. Among these, wire rods
cotton ties, and tin plates bear greatly dspro-
portlonate duties to kindred articles, and should
be made consistent and harmonious.
REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE BILL.
In addition to the foregoing, We are opposed
to the bill because First-It will disturb bust
ness. (The discussion of it in Committee has
already done this.) 1t will unsettle values, re-
tard incipient enterprises, cripple those now es-
tablished, impair confidence among business
men, so essential to our development and pros
perlty, and bring no counteryaing benefits.
Second-1t will of necessity force down the
price of labor in the United States; it will
stimulate imports, increase competition from
abroad, which can only be successfully met by
reducing the cost of the home product. The
testimony is uniform and not contradicted, that
labor will be compelled to submit to large
share of the reduction. Mr.. William Weihe
the president of the largest labor organization
in the country, said in his statement before the
Committee: THAT any reduction of the duties
would reduce the price of labor generally" We
cannot too strongly emphasize our opposition
to any legislation which even tends to reduce
our labor to the foreign standard, either in price