The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1884-10-01
Hendricks Should Try Again.

Hendricks Should Try Again.
When questions of public policy are
openly submitted TO the consideration
OF the people, there is small chance
that the decision will be wrong. The
greatest and most experienced states
inenJ have been distinguished Tor their
implicit trust in the good sense OF the
people. For this reason demaa aaogues
always try TO deceive the people by OBJ
scur,ng the real issues. Last winter the
Democrats attacked the Republican
idea OF protection to American labor.
Much. TO their surprise they found
themselves losing the sympathy of
American workingmen--which is a
very bad thing for them inst at this
particular time.
Consequently there have grown up
in the Democratic party two factions
with opposing views as to the conduct
of the present campaign. Democrats
in the Eastern and Middle States feel
like hushing up the tariff discussion,
because they find that the workingmen
are little more alert and intelligent
than they supposed. The second lac
ton is composed almost entirely of the
Western and Southern Democrats, who
think that free trade is good policy TO
advocate with the farmers and planters.
The great problem is, however, how to
preach free trade in one section OF the
country and have that subject entirely
ignored in another.
Mr.. Hendricks has evidently decided in
his own mind that more Is to be gained
by avowing and defending the Demo-
cratic view upon the tariff Federal
taxation shall be exclusively for public
purposes; would you have 1t other
wise?" he says. Federal taxation for
public purposes exclusively would shut
up half the manufactures in this coun-
try; would you have it otherwise, cap
italists. owners of mills and foundriesP
Federal taxation for public purposes
exclusively would reduce the wages
paid to workingmen by a third or half;
would you have it otherwise, working
menp
But Mr.. Hendricks would have us be-
Ieve that the tariff is tax upon the
consumer and agratuity to the producer.
He says:
II buy an imported article with a duty
upon 1t bear the burden Of that duty. II
you manufacture like srticle and sell II at
an advance Of prico equal 70 the duty, then TO
that extent you arc benefited.
Now, these statements are both de-
ceptive and fallacious. There is moth
ing new in them. They are the musty
stock in trade of generations of free
traders. II Is not true that he who
buys an imported article bears the bur-
den Of the duty. Everything depends
upon the rate Of duty. II the rate OF
duty is so low that the American man
ufaoturer can not successfully compete
with the importer, then the consumer
pays the entire tax, and the duty is very
properly called a tax or tariff for reve-
nue. only. In such case the foreign
manufacturer can charge up the cost Of
production at fair profit to himself
and then add the import duty. On the
other hand, when home competition is
possible, the tax paid by the consumer
is not at all the impon duty, but only
the difference between the cost Of the
American article and what the same
article would have cost us II produced
by foreign monopoly. Experience
proves that this difference is very small,
and that it is sometimes favorable TO
the consumer, from.the fact that Amer
lean goods are often produced more
cheaply under the stimulus Of pro-
tective tariff than the same articles sold
for when under a free-trade regime
they were produced exclusively by tie
foreign manufacturer.
The second statement made by Mr..
Hendricks is meant as an appeal TO the
pre- udice OF the consumer. The free
trade cry always is monopoly" Free
traders insist that the American capi-
talist pockets the amount Of the import
duty as clear profit. Nothing could be
more absurd. The American manu-
facturer OF articles, in the production Of
which he is protected against the cheap
labor OF Europe, derives whatever profit
the competition OF American capitalists
will allow him, and no more. just as
soon as profits in given line OF manu-
faeture become noticeably lnrge, an
army OF investors crowd in for a share
in the harvest. The result is often
ruinous over-production in that line
with heavy losses to the capitalist.
Mr. Blaine hit the nail on the head
when he said ut is impossible TO poiLt
TO single monopoly in the United
States that has been created or fostered
by the industrial system upheld by the
Republican party" We advise Mr..
Hendricks totry again. ."-Atbdny Jour
nal.
Misplaced Confidence.