The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-09-01

must hCOC5SAihJ pay thO 'oA' DhI ~
they want authority upou that subject
lot me refer to some men who have
spoken upon il and whose words will
hardly be gainsaid. First | will go
back TO John Quincy Adams, and
dare say there are plenty OF republi
cans aud some abolitiOnists IN this
crowd who have great veneratiOn for
that man memory. | kneW him we'll; |
| served in the house OF representatives |
with him, and | know how intelligent |
he was, and | know how frank and
0utspoken he was. In the year 1882 he |
was chairman of the house committee |
on manufactures, and he said, in a |
report made by him in that year: The |
doctrine that duties of import seem to |
cheaper the price of the articles OH
which they are levied seems to conflict |
with the first dictates of common sense,
The duty constitutes part of the price
of the whole mass OF the article III the
market 1t is substantially paid upon
the article of domestic manufacture as
well as upon that OF foreign produc-
ton. Upon one ii is bounty, upon
the other u burden, and the repeal OF
the tax must operate as an equivalent
reduction OF the price OF the article,
whether foreign or domestic. We say
go long as the Importation continues
the duty must be paid by the purchaser
of the article The general and per-
nanent effect must be to increase the
price OF the article to the extent of the
additional duty, and it is thon paid by
the consumer. If it were not so-if
the general effect of adding 10 the
duty was to r,duce the price of the
article upon which it is levied-the
converse OF the proposition would also
be true and the operation for increas-
| ing the price Of the domestic article
would be to repeal the duty on the
| same article imported, All experiment
which the friends of our internal ill.,
| dustry will not be desirous of making.
We can not subscribe, therefore, to the
doctrine that the duties of imports,
protective of our own manufactures,
are paid by the foreign merchant
or the manufacturer. Bnt John
Quincy Adams knew better, and he
was too honest man to make
such false pretense. Well, what said
President Arthur? He was a good
republican. In his unusual message tn
congress in 1928 President Arthur
said: Il recommend an enlargement OF
the free list--that is OF goods that pay
no duty-so as to include within it the
numerous articles which yield an in
considerable revenue-a simplificatioI
of the complex and inconsistent sched
uIe of duties upon certain manufac
lures, particularly those OF cotton, iror
and steel, and a substantial reduction
of the duties upon those articles ant
Y upon sugar, mOlasses, wool and woolel
: goods Well, that is precisely wha
2 the democrats are striving to do. This
g is precisely what the Mills bill, as it
= called, attempts to do. And yet thes
h gentlemen who are bowling aroun
D about the benefits of protection all
= the ruin that the democrats are bring
a ing on the country tell you that thi
o thing which President Arthur recon-
V mended only so lately is nothing i'll I'll
o world but free trade. They are MOI
II afraid of tree trade than they are
IT rattlesnakes Laughter and applause
: They are terribly alarmed lest the
!, should be bitten by free trade. III
lc newed laughter.
ie WeiI, now, SO far from this bell
" free trade the most striking thil
II about the Mills bill is that il is the mo
TO moderate reduction OF tarin duti
ie that has ever been attempted in IL
h. country. The average duty levi
Or under the present tariff was AZ p
ay cent and under the Mills bill the ave
u age would be only about 40 per Gel
at a reduction of only per cent upon
pt commodities taken together. Of coui
H. there are same things upon which
OF duty was reduced more. For instan'
the duty is taken off of q number
ay articles, called raw material, whi
he are used by manufacturers in th
is work in the fabrication of their pl
sse ducts. And as they receive this gr
nd benefit Of having their raw materi
ro- free or with comparatively Sill
an. duty the bill wisely provides that
The articles manufactured by them wi
hat brought into the country shall pa,
sn lower rate uf duty than they did
&C. tore. But that is nothing more Il
a compensation for taking off the d.
n. from raw material. President q
ON field said in tho house of represen
ec' tives Oh March 10, 1911: Il was 81
70 prised at a remark of the distinguish
"a gentleman from Michigan q do
nd know who that distinguished gen
m man was, but he WAS Mlchlgandt
I'd He asserted that there is no item in
bas whole tariff that can stand alone Oh
oht merits, but that all must be taken
1os lump in order to stand. That coal IL
an take salt by the hand, and they,
must take something else by the hs
ont and thus all interests unite with
,nt forces before they can make q st
the before the country. If this rem
nv, be true, it strikes a blow at the wi
,;ko tariff system-a blow am not viii
tho 10 strike. l am unwilling to ad
foot that bad taxes must be tied to z
this ones and thus be kept afoat. | IL
ont it il unwise to continue this duty
Ihe coal and am therefore in favor e
: !, repeal. This Michigander came I
,oes lumber country, expect, and he
,er- i'll favor of log rolling. Taught
'en2 Log rolling on the largest kind
,ods scale-that the man who wa
Ue protection OH one article should
he roll with the man who wanted pro
,sv ton Oh another and thus by all com
oIe' ing together and making one q
get syndicate or pool to force their mea
ha through the congress of the Un
and States. But James A. Garfield =
ai IF this remark be true it strikes q
tore ut the whole tariff system and
4 of | am not willing to strike. am
dad willing to admit that bad taxes l
lion be tied to good ones and thus be
fits ailoat'
sale Nov, my friends, there is ano
lant thing to which wish to call your
of tention. They say all at once Il
the all at once because it is very late
it is trine) these advocates OF protection
ant. all st once seized with wond'
you solicitude tor the laboring men oi
this country, anu they want high pr
for tive tariff not TO benefit the capita
no not to benefit the monopolist, no
ere benefit the manufacturers, accordlr
sold their statement, but to benefit the Ia
this ing man. He is the man they see
pay protect. Aud how are they gon
BORT protect him? Why, they say III
.nt's high protective tariff-a Port Ii
oft, lawyer-I think may name him
1t is cause am alawyer myself-when
If find one, the proceeds OF whose pr
no a sion don't afford him and his iami
un- comfortable support-why don't
ltes' tax you NIL for his benefit so as to
as a tect him? Or when they find a d'
and whose income is not sufficient to
fact port him or his family, why don't
they tax all the people OF Port Hurc
i'm order TO add to the wealth OF that
of tor? And so on with everything