New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-11-27
THE POINT or DIFFERENCE.

The difference between parties regarding the
tariff is well illustrated by spiteful remark OF
"Tbc New-Y ork Times" which says the Sen
ate bill would "increase all the tariff duties
most oppressive to industry and to the con-
sumers.D If this were not false, the bill would
certainly be favored by many who now think
it requires amendment, because the duties
which actually do Cypress industry and the
consumers without corresponding benefits are
those which aim to protect but fall short ana
the way to mend that matter is to raise tho
duties so that they shall protect To the In
telheent Protectionist the duties which fail to
develop a home industry seem 4 costly blum
der He knows that they do enhance the cost
Of imported articles, and DO not create home
production to reduce the price by competition.
That duty does some harm and no good. The
raising of duty Of that sort to such point
that it will create home production and reduce
prices is a remedy in harmony with the pro-
tectve policy wherever there is reason to be-
ieve that the desired development can be
reached without unreasonable sacrifice. Every
feature of the Senate bill which has this object
and promises this effect is emnently praise
worthy. 1t is palpably false that the Senate
bill raises duties in every such case, or in all
cases where it might be judicious.
This illustrates perfectly the fatal blunder
which Free Traders, or those who hide behind
the name of Tariff Reformers, make when they
attempt tariff revision. They start with the
false theory that duty which protects must
enhance the cost Of domestic products to the
extent of that duty. Often as this notion has
been disproved by experience, they cling to it
as stupidity as some folks once chung to the idea
that the sun revolved about the earth. Be
cause of that radical blunder, they want first
and chiefly to get rid of or to reduce the duties
which do protect, and which therefore are paid
in part or wholly by foreigners as sort OF
license for the privilege Of selling in this mar
ket. Other duties, which do no good at all
except as they yield revenue, because they fail
to develop home industry or to reduce prices
to consumers, the so-called Tariff Reformer
would leave untouched.
The instant one grasps this radical differ
ence between supporters and opponents Of pro-
lection he understands why revision made
by the opponents of that policy is certain to be
bad throughout. They cannot help selecting
for reduction or removal the very duties which
are most beneficial, and ought to be retained,
or those which fail to confer great benefits
only because they are not quite high enough
and ought therefore to be raised. Fanatically
Jealous to cut off such duties, they resist any
effort to make part Of the reduction in duties
which are not meant to do any good except as
they yield revenue. Ignorant laundering about
the facts makes such men honestly but viciously
and obstinately wrong In dealing with this class
of duties, and it is an accident if they propose
anything that is right.
The Senate bill is framed upon the opposite
idea, in so far as ID retains or strengthens pro-
tective duties. It's chief defect is that, being
prepared for publication before the election,
and at a time when the extent Of popular sup
port of the protective principle was not known,
it failed at some points to retain or to raise
where retention or raising would be wise. Thus,
to give only single example, by making the
duty on tin plates to correspond with the exist
ing duty on iron sheets of which they are made,
it could add enormously to the home demand
for iron and for American labor But every
step which it does take in that direction is
heartily approved by Protectonsts, and for the
same reason condemned by Free Traders.