St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-17
EDITORIAL DRIFT.


protection afforded to American indus
try by tariff for revenue, but am OPP
posed to a tariff laid expressly for the
purpose of protection. The policy of
imposing duty mainly for protection
purposes being once inaugurated, it be-
comes an incentive to every interested
industry to besiege congress for special
legislation to advance the selfish de-
mands of such industries. Lobbyists
are the chief mOulders of this kind of
legislation. Naturally the public, upon
whom the burden of a protective tariff
falls, are inactive during this creative
period, and the result is invariably Il
complicated tariff schedule, such as we
have at present, unjust, unequal and OPP
preSsive. The just revision of such a
tariff is extremely difficult, and, under
ordinary circumstances. will always be
defeated. because each protected indus
try will bring strong and influential Op-
position to any reduction which affects
1T individually, no matter how slight or
reasonable the reduction may be. nor
how exorbitant may be the rate which
it is desired to reduce. A protective
tariff is not authorized by the conStitu-
tiOn, and it is foreign to the theory upon
which this government is based.
Its benefits are individual and not
general, sectional and not national.
The greatest evil of suce tariff as we
have now is the outrageous and ruin
Gus taxation placed upon the leading
industry of the ry-agriculture-
an industry which employs far greater
number OF people than any other, and
upon which so vast number of other
toilers and business enterprises are de-
pendent. do not speak now of the in
justice OF making agriculture pay this
forced tribute, but say that this sys-
TEN of unrestricted robbery is reducing
the agriculturiSt to serfdom, and that
the policy is dangerous to national
prosperity. 1t is worthy of the fool who
killed the goose that laid the golden
egg. l have no reason to believe that
free trade is demanded now by any con-
siderable number of persons. would
not repeal the internal revenue. The
persons who demanded its abolition
because it is war tax are advocates OF
a high protective tariff, and the reten-
tion of that tariff is their sole object in
demanding the repeal of the internal
revenue taxes. am in favor of reduce
Ing the tariff to basis which will pro-
duce only the necessary revenue for the
expenses of the government.
~
Gordon f.. Cole, st. PAUL. op.
pose the present extravagant tariff be.
cause it is altogether higher than is re-
quired for the protection of any existing
interest and bears heavily on large
masses Of our people who are not pro-
tected; and l especially oppose the pres
ent tariff because in many cases, by
reason of the duty on raw material, the
tariff positively Injuries the manufact-
urers which it claims to protect, Free
trade never will be demanded in this
country. l think the national govern
ment will always be supported by duties
on imports. Would L repeal internal
revenue wiz: on whisky and tObaccof
BY no means. The advocates of this
only do so as an expedient to reduce the
surplus in the treasury and at the same
time retain all existing import duties.
taxed it should be whisky and
An average tariff of 40 or
45 per cent is not protection but extor-
tion, and can only be justified by POpe's
aphOrism, ''Whatever is is right" How
much would L reduce the tariff? l give
it up. That's a cOnundrum that does
not admit of categorical answer. i
would place all or most of the neces-
saTieS of life i'll common use, !. e., the
of life to the mass of our peO.
pie, on the free list. SO also those
articles which we cannot hope success.
fully to produce. To illustrate, would
not levy duty on bananas to encOur.
age their production in Minnesota. I
favor placing raw material on the free
list as rapidly as possible consistently
with due regard to existing interests.
A 10 ~ raf, oh lao h,-
of gradual and tentative reduction, so as
not to produce financial panic, or de-
stroy or injure interests which have
been built up under the existing tariff.
To illustrate my ideas of duties on raw
material, take the article of wool. /
own few sheep, but under protective
tariff OIL raw or unmanufactured wool il
has gone steadily down until il does not
pay farmer to grow it, while the duty
on it so handicaps woolen manufactures
in this country as to destroy the domess
tic market. [ believe removal of the
tariff would, by stimulating this market
and increasing the home demand, in
crease instead of decrease the price that
the wool power would receive.
~
G. p. Shepherd, worthington--
l oppose it because it has tendency to
encourage the fostering of monopolies.
believe so lcng as high protective tar
if prevails. combinations and trust
viii exist and will flourish.
III combinations and trusts were broken
up AID proliiGited it would afford
great rei.ci 10 the people. Establish the
principle o. tariff reform, advancing in
the direction OF free trade as fast as
possible, aud the time is not far distant
when lie people will demand it. Di-
minish the internal revenue, but make
the laigast reduction in the tariff, TAX
ing off the duty OIL raw material and re-
during that on manufactured goods.
This would lie sufficient for protection.
would relieve from taxation all arti-
cles that are necessary to the comfort OF
Continued I'm. EaurtI. ISaDe