Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-09-17
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRO
lection AND FREE TTADE.
Not as to the Amount But as to How
the Revenue on Foreign Importations
Shall DO Raised

OF the deceptive assertions and shallow
Free Traders are trying to confuse and
mislead the popular mind, are those which
they make use of to support the conten-
ton that the Mills bill and their St Louis
platform do not make war on protection,
because they favor the collection of Il
large revenue on foreign importations,
nearly as much as the present Republican
tariff. To make good this assumption
they resort to all kinds of cvasions, special
pleadings, and misrepresentation.
Again We repeat-the real question in
Issue between the Republicans and Dem
ocrats is not as 10 the amount Of revenue
to be raised, but as to ho,c and on uhat
articles il shall be collected. Both of the
great parties of the Nation are in favor of
reducing the revenues to the level of the
necessary expenses and the financial faith
of the government. The Republicans
maintain that the duties shall be laid and
collected on such articles and at such
rates as shall protect American labor and
foster American enterprise. The Demo-
Gratis maintain that purely revenue tariff
should be imposed by the Government,
and this Is the theory OF Cleveaud's
December message, of the Mills bill, and
of the letter of acceptance of the Demo
cratic candidate. Thus the two parties
represent precisely the lines of demarka-
ton and antagonism between Protection
and Free Trade. Among the Free Trade
teachers In this country there are none
who have a more acknowledged standing
than Professor Sumner. As the author
of published works aud in oral debate he
stands among the American champions of
the Golden Club doctrines, and he has
long been doing his utmost to lead Ameri
can students and political men into En-
glish ways. Professor Sumner says:
1.-The term Free Trade, although much dis
cussed, is seldom rightly defined. Ii does
not mean the abolition of custom houses.
Nor does il mean the substitution of direct
for indirect taxation, as u few American dis
ciples of the school have supposed. Itmeans
such an adjustment of taxes on imports as
will cause no diversion of capital from any
channel into which it would otherwise flow
into any channel opened or favored by the
legislation which enacts the customs. A
country may collect its entire rereaRe by
duties on imports and yet Be an entirely
Free Trade eouHt'y, so long as it does not
lay those duties in such a way as TO lead any
one TO undertake any employment or make
any investment he would avoid in the absence
of such duties; thus the customs duties lev
led by England, with very few exceptions,
are not inconsistent with her profession of
being a country which believes in Free
Trade.
Therefore, when the Democratic editors
maintain that they are not opposed to col
lecting a large revenue on foreign imports,
that they are opposed to supporting the
National Government by direct taxation.
and consequently are not in favor of Free
Trade, they are only trying to cheat the
people by juggle with words and phrases.
They will find in the end that the people
are much more intelligent than the Cleve-
land champions give them credit for.