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

everything else to the lowest limit, and
still keep our government in good run
ming order.
G. GulbrandsOn, Albert Lea,
Banker am opposed to pro-
lection because | believe it is
unfair for our government to
pursue policy that has tendency
to make the mill and mine owners mill
lonaires at the expense Of the farmers
and laboring men. | do not think it
would be safe to adopt a sweeping policy
of free trade at once, but the neceSSar-
les of life, such as lumber, coal, salt.
wool and sugar should go on the free
list. j would leave the tax on whisky
and tobacco. would reduce the tariff
to the lowest limit possible to
meet the expenses Of d the government
John G. Miller, foorhead-I am
opposed to present protection, as
it only benefits the manufacturers at
the expense of the people. Since free
trade became the British policy, wages
in England have advanced an average
of 90 per cent, while wages have de-
creased in Germany from the very mo-
ment she adopted the protective tariff.
Free trade is not demanded yet. | be-
lieve it would be dangerous to change
at once from protection to a free trade
policy in this country, but would like to
have it come in time. Dispense with i'll
ternal revenue, except from whisky and
beer. | would reduce the duties on
manufactured goods 80 per cent, and
place iron, wool and all raw materials,
as well as coal, salt, and sugar, on the
free list. Having always belonged to
and acted with the Democratic party, l
am glad to see the noble stand taken by
the GLOBE in the glorious cause OF the
people. Long may the GLOBE banner
wave ''over the land of the free and the
home of the brave"
#.*
William &. Deacon, st. Vincent,
Editor-We oppose protection because
unprotected agriculture is success in
Kittson county and throughout the
West, and because the farmer and
laborer of the United States have to
pay the protection tax. Reverse the
conditions and let all farm produce and
labor be protected, and let everything
that is now protected be placed OH the
free list, and every man who is now a
protectiOniSt would be free-trader.
Yes, why not have free trade?
%%
William Pfaender, New Ulm,
Real Estate-I think that our man u
featuring interests have been developed
to such degree that we can dispense
with protective tariff, and should
adopt tariff for revenue only, but care
fully adjusted so as to afford incidental
protection to industries which actually
need it. | am opposed to absolute free
trade, and would not be i'll favor of re-
pealing the internal revenue laws.
**
T. G. Mealey, Monticello, Mer-
chant am opposed to protection be-
cause it robs one class of citizens for
the benefit of another, and tends in
every way to make the rich richer and
the poor poorer. / am also opposed to
it because it is in violation of our con-
stitution. Justice, equity and man.
kinds best interest demand free trade
now, but the subject has not in this
country been sufficiently discussed by
the masses for its full comprehension,
hence the time for adoption has not yet
come. [ would not repeal the internal
revenue now. Every dollar not actually
necessary for an economical adminiStra-
tion of the government, and to provide
for our pensioned and needy soldiers.
and the payment of the interest and
principal of our national debt as it ma
lures, should be taken from the tariff.