Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-09-24

a ssumes what does not ligitimately be-
long to it. Some States in modern times,
III undertaking to find work for the
ueople, have discovered that it was a
s1re wav to make work for themselves"
The many decisions of the courts upon
the questions involved in this campaign
are in perfect harmony with the policy
for which the party OF Jefferson contends.
Where is the decision OF any American
court which upholds the principle OF pro-
lection? l have quoted from these
opinions to show the conclusions which
had been reached by the highest tri-
bunals in the land, when the investiga-
tion OF the question was in nowlse in
fuenced by party prejudice. The posi-
ton which the Republican party is forced
TO occupy is without a preceden,
in the history of American politics.
The logic of their argument must force
them beyond the exercise OF the protec-
tive principle as applied to the prohibit-
ing Of imports which now compete with
domestic articles. If the protective prin-
ciple exists under the constitution with
out regard to revenue, it may be separ-
ately ard independently exercised. II,
then, the tariff laws should be repealed,
the power of protection would remain in
|its integrity. If this be true, the prin-
lciple would demand that each and every
domestic enterprise and industry should
be protected against foreign competition.
In the event that the people should pre-
fer the system OF protection, by the cleo
ton of Harrison, the benefits must be
consistently conferred upon every indus
try which claims the privilege. Such Il
policy would result in the change OF the
methods and principles OF our govern
ment.
The American people will never assent
to such a radical change in the financial
policy of the Government. The advocacy
of such policy by the Republican party
suggests the improperly of restoring it
to power. In times past the leaders OF
the Republican party Indignantly repud-
lated the financial policy for which it
now contends, while the Democratic
party is making heroic effort to re-
deem its promise to redeem the tariff
legislation. The attitude Of the Repub-
lican party to-day on the tariff question
furnishes conclusive evidence of its
duplicity in 1884. 1t has forfeited every
right to the confidence of the people. La
its irrational opposition to every meas.
ure advocated by the Democratic party
it is forced to assume position beyond
the limits of the constitution. At nc
time in its eventful history has
it dared to advocate a protective tariff
1t has never been suggested by anybody
that the war tariff OF 1861 was any other
than temporary measure for the pur'
pose of raising sufficient revenue to de-
fray the expenses of the civil war. Its
advocates did not hesitate to promise
that it should be promptly reduced and
modified when peace and tranquility
should be restored. Indeed, no political
party has ever had the audacity to de.
clare that prote clion should become the
settled financial policy of the Govern.
ment. 1t was reserved to the statesman
ship OF the Republican party OF 1888 tc
discover the occult merits of prohibit.
ory protective policy. There was time
in the recent past when Republican
Statesmen cid not appreciate the excel
lencies of the protective 8, stem. Its
beauty and sanctity were not revealed
until the Democratic party began te
assault it. In proof of this charge
present the testimony only of Repub
licans. Senator John Sherman, in 1867
said:
Every law imposing a duty on i'm
ported goods is necessarily a restraint OF
trade. 1t imposes a burden upon tn,
purchase and sale of imported goods ant
tends to prevent their importation. TIL,
expression "a free-trade tariff" involves
an absurdity.
Again he says:
| Every duty on imported m erchandis,
gives TO the domestic manufacturer al
advantage equal to the duty.
| Again he said:
If you converse with intelligent mer
engaged in the business of mannfactur
ing they will tell you that they are will
ing to compete with England, France
Germany and all the countries OF Europe
at the old rates of duty. If you reduce
their products to specie basis, and pu
them on the same footing they were OF
before the war, the present rates of duty
would be too high. 1t would not be nee
essary for scarce any branch of industry
to be protected to the extent of you
present tariff law. They do not ask pro
lection against the pauper labor of Eu
rope, but they ask protection against the
creation of your own laws.
He said, in speech delivered on the
18th of March, 1872:
1t must be remembered that the pres
ent duties, taken together, are far in ex
cess Of what they were before the war
and that they have been three times
largely increased since the passage the
Morrill, tariff act of 1861.
The public mind is not yet prepared tc
apply the key to a genuine reform. A
few years of further experience will con.
vince the whole body of our people that
a system of national taxes which rests
the whole burden of taxation on con-
sumption and not one cent on property
or income is intrinsically unjust.
The second witness is President Grant,
who said:
SIN readjusting the tariff, l suggest
that careful estimate be made of the
amount of surplus revenue, and that the
surplus be reduced in such a manner as
to afford the greatest relief to the great
est number. ."-[U. s. Grants Third An
nual Message.
"Many duties now collected Il
might be remitted. l would
mention those articles which enter into
manufactures of all sorts. Il
These duties not only come from the con-
sumers at home, but act as protection
to foreign manufacturers" ."-[ Annual
Message Dacemher 1879