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

Il. ~. Bowen, sleepy Eye. EultOr
i am not opposed to the incidental
protection afforded to American indus
try by tariff for revenue, but am OBJ
posed to tariff laid expressly for the
purpose of protection. The policy of
imposing a duty mainly for protection
purposes being once inaugurated, il 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 protective tariff
falls, are inactive during this creative
period, and the result is Invariably a
complicated tariff schedule, such as we
have at present, unjust, unequal and OPP
preSSive. The just revision of such
tariff is extremely difficult, and, under
ordinary circumstances, will always be
defeated, because each protected Indus
try VIII bring strong and influential OBJ
position to any reduction which affects
it 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-
ton, 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 a tariff as we
have now is the outrageous and ruin
Gus taxation placed upon the leading
industry of the country-agricultu
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 q war tax are advocates of
a high protective tariff, and the reten-
ton 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 a basis which will pro-
duce only the necessary revenue for tho
expenses of the government.
~
Gordon r.. Cole, st. PAUL OPP
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 OH 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. | think the national govern
ment will always be supported by duties
on imports. Would L repeal internal
revenue wiz: On whisky and tObaccO)f
By no means. The advocates of this
only do so as an expedient to reduce the
surplus i'll the treasury and at the same
time retain all existing import duties.
In my opinion if anything should ba
taxed it should be whisky and
tobacco. especially the former.
An average tariff of 40 or
~ per cent is not protection but extOr-
ton, and can only be justified by POpe's
aphOrism, whatever is is right" How
much would | reduce the tariff? | give
it up. That's cOnundrum that does
not admit of categorical answer. |
would place all or most of the neceS-
sarieS of life in common use, i. e., the
of life to the mass Of our PEG.
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. /
favor placing raw material on the free
list as rapidly as possible consistently
with due regard to existing interests.
All tariff reform should be by system
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
take tile article of wool.
own few sheep. but under protective
tariff OH raw or manufactured wool il
has gone steadily down until it does not
pay farmer to grow it, while the duty
On it so handicaps wooden manufactures
in this country as TO destroy the dOmeS-
tic market. | believe a 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.
c. p. Shepherd, Worthington--
oppose IL because IL mas tendency "a
tie fostering of mOnopOlies.
believe so lCng as high protective tar
If prevails. combinations and trust
will exist and will flourish.
II combinations ard trusts were broken
up AID PROHIBITED it would afford
sIeat rel.ci 10 the people. Establish the
principle o. tariff reform, advancing in
lie direction OF free trade as fast as
possible, aud TIE time is not far distant
yhcn tic people will demand it. Dr.
ninish the internal revenue, but make
.he largest reduction i'll the tariff, TAX
ng oil the duty OIL raw material and re-
Turing that on manufactured goods.
This would be sufficient for protection.
would relieve from taxation all arti-
les that are necessary TO the comfort OF
Continued OH Fourth Page.