The McCook tribune. (McCook, Neb.) 1886-1936, 1888-10-19
Congressman Loird's Speech.
CONCLUDED rnom EIoara PAGE.

oiucr tWp-tniTus nave got 10 be rhisen SOME
way. How? Do you prefer 10 admit Int,
your ports OF trade, into your stores aud store
rooms, the commercial adversaries of the Unit
ell States? Allow them to come I'm without n
tax, and participate in the profits OF your mar
kets? Is there one of you engaged In the mer.
chandising business to-day who would permit
any man to come here and run out II red flag
To sell of an suction stock without levying up.
on him II tax? He comes: he brings noihing
with him when he comes; he takes nothing
except what he will have received for the sale
of his comm biities. lie has built no store
he hats bo Ight no property; he h S phi no lax.
and sn you levy Il tax upon him as u condition
OF his enjoying your market. do you noty Our
friends say. Abandon this policy which Won
maintain us proper" will y0n abandon that
policy when 1t becomes national. and adhere
TO il when it is simply local? If. in addition to
the cost of carrying on the city. county and
state. we shall shoulder for ourselves The cost
of carrying on the government of the United
states aud IN axe il Il personal matter. laying a
tax upon the check. bank note, and upon the
marriage certificate, upon the license TO prac
tice medicine, or reach ar preach or sell drugs:
II we want Ia do us England does. as France
does, why we can so dispose of he matter
aud then open the ports of the government and
ask the nations OF the world to come in and
share the greatest market existing on earth.
Let us talk about the Mills Bill IL minute
That represents the cnngregated wisdom of
The opposition. 1t isa fact, us far lis / was
personally concerned. that | was willing. nay.
| wanted free lumber. free salt. free coal and
frcesigar. | wanted. not the part of it. but
the whole of it. L wanted free lumber and
free salt. but | also wanted free coal and free
sugar The Mills Bill gives us free salt and
free lumber but it refuses to give us free coal
and free sugar. 1t coal is to he taxed then by
what right, reason. or logic of justice does il
follow that coal should he left on the protect
eel tariff list If lumber. if the wood of tn.
North. is to be tree then why not me cOal Of
the South also free? If the Northern salt is To
be free, why not by the same logic and Justice,
the southern sugar. If Northern wool is to be
Tree. then why not, by the same immutable
justice, Southern cotton also be free? If North
ne free, then why not your rice. gr. WI in the
swamps of Carolina, protected by the tax of
lO2 per cent? If Southern rice and Southern
I WI "hh S'ppIt IL W " tdStl lUtH why NOT
the hay, the meat product, the vegetable pro-
duct. the potatoes and the peas and the hay,
and the meat product of the North also be
prOtected! Protection on everythin- South
of the Potomac river and free trade on nearly
everything North of that river. Is that the
way To make a law? What are the qualities
which constitute the Fundamental principlcs
of law, what are they! Equality, isn't It? Can
you make Il law and call il justice and yet
make il fall with Il burden on the shoulders of
one and not as a burden upon the shoulders
of another! What matter it whether we get
free salt or not? In II large degree il cannot
effect any thing except the shipments of certain
high grades of salt. If II were free there
wouldn't be Il pound-if [ am rightly advised
II, the statis,ics-there wouldn't be IL pounC
of the british commodity of this Kind used en-
cept in u few special instances. The lumber
which wanted on the free list is probably on
the taxed list to-day under the provisions of
the Mills Bill, because the Wills Bill contains
II provision that if any export duties he laid
upon these commodities then the same duties
existing before the passage of The Mills act
shall remain. The articles which we have put
on the free list have been subjected to export
taxes by the Canadian authorities, so. III der
the provisions OF the Mills Bill, he tax has
been restored. Instead OF The money going i'll
to the Golfers oil the government of the United
States 1t goes elsewhere.
Canadian lumber is not held as it is here. 1t
Remains i'll the title of the government. Now
then, the Canadian government is not in Il
good financial condition They are nard
pressed for revenue. have here. If | Stw lit
to take time to read it, Il discussion of the matt
ter 10y The consul of CanadH. Take the whole
amount of lumber that might come into com
petition here, and what is il? Something over
SIX million out-pu un which The duty would
be not much i'll excess of one million dollars.
He says that the Canadian government will lay
II tax equal to any gam we might otherwise
raise 10y the reduction OF our revenue.
Here Is, perhaps. the Most interesting feat
ure of the tariff question so far as it concerns
men us an ecUuomic problem. and that is the
And it furnishes, probably. the best
ex planation of The attitude of the parties on
the straight question presented in the cam
,,aign to the minds of thoughtful people. It
probably furnishes the best illustration that
Can be furnished undertake tn say that il is
IL wise policy in this country, so far as we have
raised revenue by duties laid upon imports
Into this country. that sc should so lay it as 10
offer the largest amount of protection to the
industries of this country, to the end that we
may not be brought in competition. either those
of us "hO grow oats. corii, rye. barley or meat,
that those who are our customers may not he
brought into competition with the under pa
Lahore of Europe, if we can prevent it. | would
not lay Il duty upon Il product of which we are
not the manufacturers OF a competing pro-
duct. If we did not raise sugar then | wOuid
not pile up an enormous duty of ~tfty-six to
ffty-eight million de!Iars on sugar, because it
does not strengthen an American industry, it
does not employ an American hand and it
does not protect and prosper an American
family.
The people of the United States are CONSUME
ers of SeveEty-siX TO seventy eight million
pounds of sugar. On this sugar the re Is col
lected fifty six TO ifiy-eight million Collars
duty. Fifty-eight million dollars duties; thar
is one dollar IL head practically for every per
son in the United States. This duty is imposed
by standards. and here is an object lesson.
This is called n 10. Dutch Standard" su@ar.
ManifcstIy that is not fit for domestic use.
There is not Il housewife i'll this hall who would
use this sugar. There is N ;. Ii. Dutch stand
There is not Il housewife i'll the house
but who would say that that sugar is fit for
general purposes. For general purposes, that
will he demand of our commercial trade.
The significance of this is in the colur. and
this is supposed. of course. frOm irs dark APP
pearance NO 10 TO contain less sugar and con-
would be of less value as sugar than
that is, so the low duty is imposed on this and
the higher duty on that This No. l6j is sup
posed to lie sufficiently good for the ordinary
culinary uses. isn't it? This could be sold,
perhaps. two cents Il pound higher. The duty