St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-05-20
THE pROTECTIONIsT SIDE.
Feed, of Maine, Explains the Pro-
tectionist View.


WASHINGTON, May 19.-NIr. Reed, of
Maine, said that he proposed to discuss
some of the general principles which
underly the two modes of national ac-
ton which were confessedly in dispute
in congress and in the country. He
would treat the bill as in their hearts
the leaders on the other side treated it,
as step only in particular direction.
How important the propositions at issue
were the intense interest already eX-
cited by the pending measure on two
continents bore the strongest witness
that could be borne by men. Those
who, living on this side of the ocean,
grew articles which were necessary for
the comfort and happiness of the people
of the United States were on one side of
the question, while the foreign man
ufacturers, foreign political econo-
mistS and foreign statesmen were
On the other side. This, how
ever, should not prejudice the
question. If it be true that by having
their goods manufactured abroad the
people of the United States as a whole
would become richer and more prosper
Gus, would have their houses better
furnished, their tables spread with finer
linen and covered with more healthful
food: if their bodies would be protected
by warmer woolenS from the cold of
Maine, and by finer clothing from the
burning sun of Texas; if they would on
the whole, and from generation to gen
Grafton, enjoy more of the
COMFORTS AND LUXURIES
of life and would themselves be more
intelligent, more independent and bet
ter fitted to be citizens of a republic al
ready great and destined to be mighty
then by all means sink national preju-
dice, burst the barriers of provincial mar
rOwnesS, and with one accord adopt
not merely the present bill, but such
legislation as would treble the Spindles
of Europe and destroy our own. Such
measures would put out our furnaces
and illumine those beyond the sea. Of
every 81 in our pockets, if 81 alone was
sufficient, if spent in England to give
Us all we had now, and we were sure of
still having in our pockets the same
dollar which we now had, surely the
problem was too easy for dispute. too
simple for discussion. We had only to
pass bill which gave free course to
what the free trade professors with
glib seculariZation of the Deity called
the international law of the Almighty !:
and if the learned economists on the
other side were true to their logic, and
did not palter with both their language
and their convictions, they could pro-
pose no other course.
NAPOLEON WAS RIGHT
when he said Europe must be Cossack
or republican; Lincoln was right when
he said the United States must he either
free OF slave; the house divided against
itself had to unite or fall. The revenue
reform argument was either false pre-
tense or covers the whole ground. Pro
lection was either in its essence a benefit
or curse. You cannot dilute curse
and make it blessing. Incidental pro-
lection was a sham. Tariff for revenue
only went down before the same argu-
ments which were used against protec-
ton. If protection be tax for a manu-
facturer's benefit, then it was the same
tax, if it be the result of even a revenue
tariff. Incidental protection was of all
the most ineXcusable. 1t was an acci-
dent which ought to be avoided like a
railway disaster. The president was
the leader of the Democracy. He was
also the dispenser Of patronage, and, as