The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1884-05-20
Leading Points on the Tariff Dis.
cuSSiOn.


form. and in his recent speech in Con
gress on the MORRISON billhe has showl
most conclusively that no one is bette
able than be to interpret its meahing =
His argument demonstrates that tn
Ohio Platform is not only sound In the
ory but safe in practice; and his speecl
contains clear and forcible statefien
of those principles which underlie tn
whole tariff question. In what follows
We have attempted to give brief syn
opsis of portion of his argument
The advocates OF the MoRRrsoN bill
following the line Of argument contained
in Secretary Walkers Report of 1S45
base all their opposition to tariff, ex
cept for revenue only, on the assump
ton that tariff operates go as to enabl,
one class to indirectly tax another clas.
for its benefit far in excess of the reve
nue. collected into the Treasury. This
amount Of Indirect taxation they varl
ously stated at from 500 millions to l..
500 millions annually ia ;, gsi.se
General WARNER sho ws, in bis, pub
llshed speech, that this assumption is en-
,irely faliacious, and that tariff had th,
=
eject OF an Indirect tax, Sot became ,
bounty, only where the tariff faas Wa.
SO high as to permit monopolles 70 b
fotmed-that is, to enable few 10 CON
bine and prevent competition. And he
insists that in that case only does a Tar
if operate at all as an indireettAx; ,ano
the Ohio platform carefully guards
against tariff that would create or fos
ter monopoly.
= Another point 10 the argument sgsins
any degree Of protection was, that tar.
id, BY making manufactured products
higher here than efsewbete, would pre-
vent our going into foreign markets will
our products. -
To this point Gen. WARNER replies
that We could only GO into foreign mar
kets with manufactured goods in Gem
petition with England when we cou,d
produce such goods IS cheaply as En
gland, and that rseans that every sfemen
that enters into the cost Of pfoddctior
must be as cheap ss in other countries
and, Of course, that includes labor. Ir
other words, We must take as low profits
raw msteffai mist be iu every respect as
cheap. and isbot, also, IS ehesp, as it i.
in any country with which We compete
On that condition, and that alone, it Il
shown, can we go into The markets o.
the world with our manufactured goods
On the other hand. without tariff oul
manufacturers can save their home mar'
ket only when they will sell here al
cheaply as 8 foreign manufacturer vii
--so that, in any view of this question
the result mus; be to equalize our whole
Industrial system With the Industrial sys
tens OF other countries where labor gets
the least share of what is produced, or
in other words. the very lowest wages
Where one country has any setsral oI
acquired advantage Of any of rs pfod
ucts over another, then il can go into .
foreign market not having such advan
tage without The necessity oil, reducing
other elements of cost, as labor, to- tbs
level 1t Otherwise would be ..rtqllred tc
do. And really tue profit or gain which
one couHtry derives in trading with an
other Is wtefe sach can exchange that
ia the production of which il possesse
some climatic or other natural adyar
itage. or some other special acqaired ad
vantage, for the products of the other
'produced under advantages peculiar t
such eountry !, otherwise TO attempt t.
put our kpdustrial system into cvuspeti
lrioT with other systems. where labor i
counted for little, would necessarily re
suit in our loss and their gain.
The net result, il the experiment o
free trade we're tried 10 this. countr,
would be that our rsan afactarsrs Woul,
be giving npa home market OF thou
sand millions q year for foreign mar
ket thousands OF miles away for one o
two hundred millions.
Gen. WARNER also shows, thst so lonl
as the tariff raised above the line tha
marks the differences in the cost OF pro
'ducing any given commodity here ant
abroad, the farmer shared in tue benefit
OF tariff so levied as to encourage pro
duciye industries sd h0me. He ais
shows tue difference between the pIinci
! pie laid depn in the Ohio Platform, an
. tsrif for revenue only; and claims cha
the principles Of the Ohio, Ratfofr
ought to be applied to reforming th
rtarig. While fEe MoRRssoN bill Feft al
the inequalities aud iniqaities of the oil
tariff law to remain, 1t wotff ssiA leay
duties SO high on some things az to pei
init monopoly, while ON others, as D
wool already too low, il reduced the tai
iff 20 per cent more. Thasbill was no'
therefore, consistent with the Ohio Pla'
form or any sound theory Of tariff re
form but was rather stepsin the diree
ttion OF free trade. and this was a5or
an its sdvocates claimed for the meas
lure. ~
} The baF, while it would reduce ,h
rate OF dRy would result, mot in a d,
crease OF revenue, but necessarily in q
increase principally for the reason tbs
It would lead to large impNtstions; an
this, on tie other hand, wou.d resu
necessarily fn breakiug down many {
:-l..t,;., ,r1 d;.t,,kss-.r- .fk,, ~, a