National Republican., 1888-01-05

and IL had operated even better tnan nau
been hoped. The value OF such articles
the duties collected on them not less than
$50, ,000,00 nearly one-third OF the whole
amount collected.
1t certainly could not be said Of these
duties that they Imposed burden upon
those who consumed domestic products as
well as upon those who consumed imported
articlesn (usiDg the Presidents language).
On the contrary, these duties had imposed
the chief burdens OF taxation upon articles
OF voluntary luxury and had still melted |
American artists and mechanics to compete
In those branches OF industry with the
skilled artisans Of Europe and Asia. In
this way
REMARKABLE PROGRESS HAD BEEN MADE |
In those expensive productions, and porce.
lain, table ware, ornaments, clothing, deco |
rated and enameled furniture, and multi |
tude Of other articles nj taste and luxury |
(the work OF Ameri-.n n,echancs) had |
been brought within the means OF great |
masses OF the American people. To reduce |
the duties on these foreign luxuries would |
be to transmit the burden Of taxation from |
those who now bear IL willingly to the |
shoulders Of the people.
Another class OF duties was on articles OF
food and on animals. or these the value
imported last fiscal year was $l12,000,OO0,
and the duty paid on them S6S,000, 600. OF
this sum the sugar, rice, and fruit imported
we're valued at $9l 900, 900, and paid duty
OF S63, 900, ,000--or more than nine tenths
of all the taxes levied on food and animals.
These were articles that entered into the
consumption of every family In the United
States. II the object were TO reduce surplus
revenue, what better mode, he asked, could
| be suggested than to repeal one-halt OF the
duty on sugar. and thus directly relieve the
people from SIS, $780, 600 OF taxes on On
artio1a N m panaral a and nnw hnarinp
| tax of SO per cent? No such suggestion
| was made by the President or the Secretary
| Of the Treasury; and he (Mr. Sherman) did
| not care TO explore the reasons for their
silence. He believed In
PROTECTING ALL HOME INDUSTRIES,
1 without respect to section or to the
| place or manner OF whether
on the farm or in the workshop; but,
II protection was not the object OF the
law, and II surplus revenue was the great
evil to be dealt with, why not give relief to
the people by a reduction OF the lax on
sugar? The effort to produce sugar In the
United States In quantities at all approach.
ing the demand had failed, though protected
by the highest tariff rates, still, In view OF
the hopeful prospects of producing sugar
from beets and sorghum cane, as well AS
from sugar cane, he would not cripple that
industry by reducing protective duties, ex-
cept by giving the producers OF domestic
sugar bounty equal to the reduction Of
duty on the imported article. But II was
not OF the duties on food that the Presi-
dent complained as "vicious, inequitable,
and Illogical source Of taxation" The du-
ties OF which he complained were those for
the benefit OF manufacturers, and he urged
especially "a radical reduction OF the duties
Imposed upon raw materials, used 10 man
ufactures, or their free Importation"
The great body Of crude articles imported,
which entered into the processes OF domes-
tic industry to the value Of $l06,0OO,OOO,
article Of that class was so, unless 1t com.
peted directly with the development OF
American resources. Duties averaging 32
per cent. were now levied upon such i'm
ported articles, valued at $50, ,50O, 900, and
which yielded a revenue Of $19,5O0, ,0aO.
The chief Of them were agricultural Pro, pro,
ducts-wool, fax, hemp, and other textile
grasses; hops, bristles, and seeds-valued at
$50, 100000, and yielding revenue Of $lO,-
100000, or less than 80 per cent. The re-
mainder was chiefly metals, In ore or pigs,
coal and marble, OF value Of $22 100000,
and yielding $9,250,0O0. These imports
came into direct competition with the pro-
farmers and Of hundreds Of thousands OF
laboring men. This moderate protection,
given to the labor aHia -GSearltal employed
In mining and agricultural Industries,
~ SSS--~- -.--S
THE rAvoRITE POINT OF ASSAULT
by the President and all free traders upon the
t'protectiye policy. 1t was the citadel OF the
system. The whole depended upon the
principle that it was wise to give, by tariff
lave, to all forms Of American labor the
. degree OF protection or advantage which
the imposition Of duties on similar foreign
productions necessarily gave. That had
been the inle since the beginning OF the gov
eminent, and had been recommended by
every President from Washington to pix
The same rule has been applied for the
benefit Of the farmer, the miner. and the
furnace owner, as well as Of the manulac
turer, and whenever that rule was departed
: from the whole system would fail, and
properly SO. The principle Of protection
,, and "A'of Of BURDENS. BURDENS The 'eIiu. object
was protection to labor, not to capital. Nc
reason could be given why wool should be
made free at d woolen goods should be pro
tected. II there must be cheap wool there
: must be cheap woolens, and :. the labor Of
the farmer In producing the wool was no;
protected against undue competition with
r | Australia or Buenos &yres, then that OF
l the cloth maker should not be protected
against competition with the looms o
Manchester and Lyons. II there were low
, duties on iron ore there would have to be
low duties on iron and steel in all it's forms
} The farmer performed as valuable labor as
the artisan and the rights of every producer
.. should have
EQUAL AND JUST CONSIDERATION,
without fear or favor. And yet the Presi
dent had select ed that class Of production.
, under the name OF straw materials
for destruction, and had esp"'
} cially selected wool as al
article not to be protected. His whole ar
etaI tha oil Ion ths
price of wool was increased to the extent OF
the duty, and that but for the duty the
/ merchant could buy his wool cheaper II
South America and Australia. This argu
! ment was fallacious, because the destruc
tion Of the wool industry in the loited
/ States would at once advance the price oi
i wool In foreign markets. But even II TIT
!. argument were true, 1t would apply US wei
to all domestic productions and to al
manufactures. Wool was the completed
article Of the farmer just as cloth was o.
the manufacturer and as the coat was OF the
tailor; and the objection that the duty OF
: wool raised the price to the consumer ap
and on every article on the tailtf list. The
all-sufllcient answer was that the duty en-
couraged the production Of wool, the maui
facture OF cloth, and Of the infinite variety
Of articles produced by American labor
, competing with foreign labor This di
| Nelslty OF prouuctlon luureu 10 Tue Denen'
. of all classes Of the people alike, and was
the secret Of the enormous growth, power
and
WEALTH or THE REpUBlIC.
J 1t had always seemed TO him that The
' most parrow ard selfish notions ad
vapced in respect to tariff laws (aud
Q TO which the President now leat hli
. name) was that made on behalf of ad
] vanced Industries, now supported by dulle
t greater than those on raw materlals-tha
b they must be allowed to purcha'e their raw
! materials III the cheapest markets OF th,
7 world-that the mineral treasures 10 every