The Portland daily press., 1888-07-24
TImId Reformers.

Inc Argus continues to make daily as
saults on protection, characterizing 1t as rob
berry and alleging that ii is detrimental to
the workingmen of the country and that 1t
enriches the few at the expense of the many.
Meanwhile the Augusta New Age, another
Democratic organ, continues to assert that
the Mills bill does not even squint toward
free trade, and even the author of that bill in
his closing plea for its passage spent the
most of the time allotted to him in an attempt
to prove that it is not free trade measure
Protection is robbery, shout Democratic
statesmen and Democratic organs. 1t is
unjust to the workingmen; it makes Million
aires and beggars. "Then Of course" re-
marks the listener to these harapgues.
what you are seeking to do is to overthrow
this Ubiquitous system. Then your Mills bill
is the entering wedge in the process of split
ting this system to pieces and substituting
in its place system of tariff for revenue
only" 'Oh, no." replies the Democratic
reformers. I'VE don't mean a tariff for
revenue only, we don't mean free trade We
are simply putting the tariff on peace foot
ing. Our Mills bill only makes an average
reduction in the amount of protection of
seven per cent" But" replies the puzzled
listener, you say the protective system is
ROBBERY, you are constantly denouncing it
and yet you confess that you do not intend
to destroy it; your aim is simply to reduce
the amount of robbery little. there doesn't
appear to be very large amount of reform
about that" At this point the reformer
generally changes the subject.
l,oA4 Al 80
at this juncture is more courage; and it is
for lack of it that he is constantly putting
himself in ridiculous and indefensible DO
sition. Considered as step toward free
trade the Mills bill is defensible. Its appar-
ent Inconsistencies are then easily explained.
If it is asked, for instance, why rice is left
protected by a duty of over 100 per cent,
while wool is put on the free list. as long as
the bill is regarded as a measure looking
toward tariff for revenue only, the answer
is easy. All Mr.. Mills or the Democratic or
gan has to say is that it was impossible to
overthrow the whole protective system at
once. Had that been attempted defeat
would have followed. But by attacking a
few Industries at time without alarming
other industries it will be easy ultimately to
destroy the whole system. Every time an
industry is deprived of protection the ranks
OF the free traders are strengthened, because
the men concerned in this industry having
been deprived of their protection become in
different to the protective system. On the
other hand, if the Mills bill is treated simply
as readjustment of protective duties, it can
not be defended for an instant. 1t then be
comes most brazen and shameless piece of
robbery. Wool upon the free list, and
weolen manufactures protected by a duty |!
Such readiustment of the tariff as that is
utterly indefensible. Sugar protected to the
extent of 6s per cent. with salt ana lumbar
on the free list! Nobody can defend such
readjustment as that. Marble protected, with
granite on the free list The two paragraphs
are utterly inconsistent. A Democratic
statesman or a Democratic organ does not
exist that can defend the Mills bill for an
instant If it be regarded merely as a modif-
cation of the present administration of the
protective system. Yet this is what nine
tenths of the statesmen and organs are
seeking to do, simply because they have not
the courage of their convictions. Rather
than acknowledge what is the truth, that
they are for tariff for revenue only, they
will stultify themselves by claiming that
their~pet measure is nothing but a slight
modification of system which they pro-
nounce robbery.