New-York tribune., 1886-01-05
ppoTrcTJON NOT A BURDEN.


TLo Uorjd renorts remarks of the President
to a correspondent on the silver the ONh "ei-
vice. and the tariff question, which are maihiy
reiteraton with emphasis OF opinions preVi-
ously expressed. But the remarks on the tarii
question that are imputed to him are no' 10 His
credit. Either the correspondent falled 10
con- preherd the President or to report MN cor
rectIy, which is quite likely, or Mr.. cleveland
has but vagne and il-delined ideas on that sub
iect. For he is reported as saying that the
tariff should be changed i'll such way as " 10
help poor people who labor, and take away
needless protection from the few VINO nave
grown inordinately rich at the expense OF the
many.n If these words were really used by the
President, he has much to learn.
Poor ncpple who labor can indeed be helped
by certain changes of tariff. But those changes
would not take away needless protection from
n few who have grown inordinately rich" Inc
noor people who labor consume most OF the
sucor imported, for example, and pay great
mart of the duties thereon. But tins duty,
tbou.h it protects sugar-producers in Louisl-
ana. has not enabled any to grow inordinately
rich at the expense OF the many. oh tle con-
trary, very few sugar-producers In this country
have been able to make any money, anu the
business generally is so far unprohtaole tnat
the production obstinatcly refuses to increase
The duty is needed for revenue, but IL mas not
.inordinately enriched few" because 1t has
NOT even secured such profits that others nave
becn tempted to engage i'll the same business.
But now let n case be taken in which duties
ohviously have protected. The steel rail man-
nfoctnre was for years the stock illustration OF
the opponents of defensive duties. In lhiS
case. duties did secure for a time large prohtS
to n few manufacturers perhaps Mr. Cleveland
vould say that they grew inordina'ely rich, but
in view of what followed the remark would
hardly be lust as applied to them. For, because
their nroiits were large enough to attract others,
conital crowded into the business, until now
there arc mills capable Of producing about twice
tho ouantitv reouired for consumption in this
country. Hence there was prolonged struggle
between the old and the new manufacturers, III
which great losses were sustained and prices
were driven down below the actual cost AT most
mills. and those who had been enabled 10 reap
large profits lost heavily in trying to retain
control of the markets. The truth Is that many
were forced into bankruptcy. The people poor
or rich get rails now, and probably VIII LOT
long time to come, at less than thiiu ol the
price at which Great Britain sold them when
the manufacture was established here. The
duty did protect, but it does not burden poor
people. whether they labor or not, nor would It's
removal help the poor people. 1t would simply
ruin n great many capitalists in this country
and turn out of employment great many
workers, and benefit manufacturers III England
Certainly tins is not what Mr.. Cleveland wants
Bnt what kind of duty is it that he would have
removedG That which burdens the people does
not enrich anybody; it yields revenue but
either was not meant or has failed to protect.
That which protects has resulted in cheaper
products than could have been obtained by 'e-
lying upon foreign producers. and 50 does not
burden anybody, poor or rich, but has bope-
ftcd all. Can Mr. Cleveland explain which
kind of duty he would have repeatedly