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

Sluy W Cdpltdl cllploy GU III lHC plo1CCpOu
manufacturing and mining enterprises.
thus giving to the few an unfair adj
vantage at the expense of the many. l
believe that free trade is demanded
now, and that the business of this
country will never be in healthy con-
dition until we have the benefits of a
country on the globe. | would there
fore reduce the tariff until the per-
nicious principle of protection is com
pletely eliminated. and the burden of
taxation made as light as possible upon
imported articles produced in this
country. | would not repeal the inter
nal revenue taxes, nor reduce them by
one dollar, because they are laid upon
luXurieS the consumption of which does
not need to be encouraged. Because
the incidence of these taxes gives no
one any advantage, and the govern
ment gets all the extra price the con-
Sumer has to pay. Because the internal
revenue is very productive, and greatly
reduces the amount which it is nee
essary to raise by tax on imports.
~
p. j. SmaIIey, Caledonia, Editor
i oppose protection because | am con-
WINGED that it is false economy, wrong
in principle, vicious in its effects, I'M
just in its operation, corrupting in its
tendencies, the most eXtrayagant and
costly method of collecting revenue
ever devised, the mother of combina-
tons, trusts, pools and strikes, and the
only obstruction to the United States
taking the commercial position among
the nations of the earth, which, by vir-
tue of her opportunities, her position
and her natural resources, she is en-
titled to. So, regarding protection, L
cannot but look Oh free trade. as nearly
absolute" as it can be made, as imper-
atively demanded, and that it should
come as soon as amendments to the con-
stitution can be made making the land
values of the states, instead of their
population, the basis of federal taxa
ton. L would repeal all internal reve-
nue. taxation as soon as that point is
reached and not before. Just how much
l would reduce the tariff may be in
ferred from the foregoing. AS a matter
OF practical craftsmanship the tariff
should be reduced by gradual and GER
tain stages adjusted to meet, in point of
time, the adoption of different and
more equitable system of taxation.
~
G. III. Chadb0urne, Princeton
Protection is class legislation and should
be unconstitutional. 1t creates million
aires and beggars. 1t joins hands with
monopolies and is the parent of trusts"
1t seeks to control elections and the law
makers. Protection is like man on
big spree, at first everything booms,
after a little he gets sick, then sicker,
and finally, he wishes he hadn't. A
tariff for revenue only, and that placed
and should be brought about as soon as
it safely can be. Internal revenue is ex-
cuSable in war times, as a necessity
only.
M. w. Ryan, New Richmond,
CHARACTERIZATION compells the pro-
ducer and laborer to pay for every pro-
tected article he buys whatever the
tariff is on that article over and above
what the price would be if it was not
protected. In my opinion absolute free
trade is not demanded. | would favor
the placing of all neceSSarieS of life on
the free list. On tobacco and whisky |
would continue a revenue, and on all
luxuries. l would favor the reduction
of the tariff to the actual expenses of
the government.
III. j. Wilkinson, Granite Falls,
Merchant oppose protection be-
cause l believe it to be against the best
interests of the people. The nation is
no longer in its infancy. and our manu-
facturerS, with the facilities at hand,
are abundantly able to take care of
themselves. A small import duty
levied, primarily for revenue, upon
goods will, | think, be
sufficient protection. / think free trade
is not demanded now. l believe in
internal revenue. | would
reduce the tariff very materially. Coal
should be on the free list. So also
should sisal, ETC., used in manufacture
ing our binding Irvine. Sugar | believe
should be taxed, but lightly-nOt over
one-fourth the present rate, or even
less; and raw material, with but few
should be on the free list.
~
John F. Norrish, Hastings, Mer-
chant am opposed to protection
when import tariff duties are levied
wholly for protection, deeming it a
OOunUy III l0fOl vi bHC lCNs gu tilC GA
pense of the many; in other words,
class legislation. Free trade is not de-
now, neither can it be so long
as the general goverpment needs, and
relies so largely on this source of
Fair trade, not free trade. Internal
you repeal it? No, nor
yet rednce it, until the public treasury
would permit the last vestiage of tax
taken off of the common and daily
necessarieS of life, in fact all raw
utilized in our manufacturing
industries. Is it consistent to impose a
high tax on sugar, wool, and wooden
goods, and have free whisky, with the
children half-clad on our prairieS? I
would reduce the tariff to the lowest
possible amount consistent with the
public needs equitably adjusted.
-
w. G. Nash, East Grand Forks
oppose protection, for of all questions
in our political economy, this is the
greatest fraud of all. 1t is the basis of
strikes and discomfort among the labor.
ing class. Do away with it and then
we in a great measure solve the labor
problem. Free trade, in great meas
ure, is demanded now. Tax luXuries-
all necessaries free. Give each state
power to regulate, govern and control
is own revenue. Bequeath to posterlty
our national debt. On the tariff ques-
ion alone we can elect CleveIand-then
will be the lot of the Ia
)orer, and prosperity for all.
FAIR TRADE.
Ex-senator o. M. Hall, Red
Wing-Why do l oppose protection?
Roan,,co in, -,-cto,,, Ill,