Saint Mary's beacon., 1888-04-12

this means to that point, d5Iaes,ic rails
are placed at SIS. just enough To un-
derseil them. l. it not the oa's:de
pressure caused By the ehsspness Of
foreign rails and not protection that
cheapens rails here?
Again, we import $40. .00g. 900 worth
Of manufactured woolens year, ghich
pay a duty Of $30,000O00 This
!nakes the cost TO the American con-
sumcr $79, 100000. Under compara-
tive free trade they woald cost the
American consumer $4,000. 900.
Under protection they cost him S70,-
100000. See how protective tariff
cheapens clothingi That clothing i.
cheaper now than it was thirty years
ago cuts no figure. We import but
one-fith Of the woolens We use, aud
that ore-Gfth cost us 100000 be-
cause Of protection. The fve-fifths
of our whole product costs US $780,
600, 1000 more than it would if il was
not for protection. And were it not
for foreign free trade, that forces
prices down within the limits OF the
duty, as in the case Of rails, our
woolens would cost US much more.
We collect about fifty millions
year duty on sugar. And Jet We are
told that we have reached the climax
of absurdity when we assert that our
sugar costs us more than it would If
it was not for the duty paid-if it was
not for this extra $50,000000. See
how protection cheapens sugar!
THE FIRST AMERICAN TARIFF.
Let the protectionist tell US why
it is, if our protective tariff has cheap
ened product, it is necessary to con.
tinue it higher than il was forty years
ago. The first American tariff WAS
ali average Of something over s per
cent, and all admit that i; gave the
requisite protection and started the
/ wheels OF industry. 1t now averages
IS per cent, and yet every protec-
ZIONIST claims that it is necessary, and,
more than this, that in many cases it
is not high enough. So, too, 1t him
tell US why still! higher tariff Is
necessary now than then, unless it be
to guard against an invasion of still
cheaper goods now than then. That
is, if goods do not cheaper faster un-
der comparative free trade Ia n pro-
lection, why is it necessary TO increase
the tariff to keep them out Of our
protected market?
When 90 per cent. tariff protects
the manufacturer it is proof that his
product cannot be made under Tree
trade for % per cent. less. When it
does not protect him il is proof that
It can. When a tariff Of Is per cent.
. is necessary 10 protect him ii Is proof
that the goods manufactured by him
can be made under free trade for at
least 10 per cent. less. The protec-
tioL!,t says that this IS per cent. is
absolutely necessary 10 him. If this
be so, how is it, then, that protection
cheapena product? That goods cheap
on under protection is no proof that
protection cLeapens them. When
they cheaper much faster under fee
trade than under protection, is it not
conclusive proof that protection clogs
and retards the cheapening process
rather than hastens it?
With the force Of truth can we re-
ply to the protectionists: "Look
around you, Mr.. Protectioni,t, and
tell us how it IS possible that rro,ec
tion has cheapeued product when il is
necessary to have higher tariff than
ever to keep lower-priced goo!s, the
product Of free trade manufacture,
out OF your protected market"
Mr.. President. the day has come
when 4 decided and decisive stand
must be taken upon this tariff question,
The line within and without tie
Democratic party must be sharply
drawn that it may be known who al,
and who are not Democrat the
test to be applied is not merely as tc
what political name We 30 by, but
what political beliefs do We indulge
The doctrine that the taxation shal
be limited TO governmental wants is {
Democratic doctrine, ard those within
the party who are not for it ar,
against it. That they are known a.
Democrats does moi make them such
for by their acts they prove that upor
the a!l-important question Of the day
they are in accord with the opposition
rather than with the party whose
principles they profess.