The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1888-08-02

4
face Of al American complainant When h'
thinks Of Grorer Cleveland and Mr.
BAyAtd.
The Mil. Bill Not n Free Trade Dec
ument.
Oar Democratic friends say that th,
Mills bill Is not free trade measure snt
| in this they are not altogether wrong, bul
Il goes ~ far In Tia, direction that good
eciionisi Democrat like Randall could
not yots iaf il. aud as il IL msde the plat.
form u tie party i, is diilical, TO see how
snY good protectionist Democrat, il be iul
Iy understands the bill. can conscientious.
vote for Cleveland
In regard TO What constitutes free trade
10 tie oidinary acceptaiion Of the term
both 10 Il j. country aud 10 Easlsud is a
matter Of dispute All agree that Eng
land is free trade country and yet Fog
land receives each year nearly one hun
bred millions 10 iaxeJ on imported goods.
Thee taxes are levied on goods not pro
duced 10 England and are therefore not
levied for protection. The late "Confed
crate States Of America" 10 forming their
constitution, provided that il should be q
free trade country, the cotton states were
always for free trade, and the article was as
follows:
The Congress shall have power
10 lay and collect taxes, duties, i'm
posts aud excuses for revenue necessary to
pay debts, provide for the common de
Tense. aud carry ON the government Of the
Confederate States but no bounties shall
be granted from the Treasury; nor shall
any duties or taxes on importations from
foreign nations be laid to promote or fos
ter any branch Of industry, and all duties,
imports aud excuses shall be uniform
throughout the Confederate States.
The Mills bill is free trade in two res
poets, II takes off all the duty from over
fifty articles, mostly produced 10 the
north, aud it retains high duty on arti-
Giles not produced in this country to any
great extent. Removing the duty from
wool and lumber and keeping duty Of
GS per cent on sugar demonstrates the ma
iure OF the bill. This country can produce
less than one tenth OF its sugar and i'm
ports the remainder, while it can produce
all the wool needed and at a reasonable
price. The duty on rice is kept at l0Oper
cent while ii is removed from potatoes.
We know it is claimed that the Mills bill
does not remove the duty from potatoes
but careful reading of it will convince
any one that il it becomes law "all vege
tables not otherwise provided for" will
be admitted free, aud the bill makes no
other provision for potatoes. As the clause
does not mention any vegetable by name
1t would be entirely meaningless unless il
means that "aIl' vegetables not otherwise
specifically provided for in the bill, shall
be admitted free.
Tho bill reduces the tariff on nearly ev
but as il does not do this 10 all
cases to the extent Of entirely destroying
protection, to this extent it is not free
trade The excuse for the bill is that it is
necessary to reduce the revenue, but par.
tial reduction Of the tariff might increase
the revenue by increasing the importations.
This was the case when wool Was reduced
one half in S3, and we believe the country
would be better of to-day il the tariff on
wool had remained where it was before the
reduction. The revenue from sugar is
about 500, 900 900 each year. and the Mills
bill only reduces the duty from ~ to 68
per cent II the duty should all be taken
of it would harm only the Louisiana plant
srs and would vastly benefit the country
It large. The Louisina planters could be
paid bounty enough to equal the amount OF
he present tariff on sugar. and then the
country would save over $50, 900, 900 each
FEAR, while the revenue would be essened
s60, 900. 900 This would be sensible
way OF reducing the revenue, bnt putting
hat we can produce on the free list is not
sensible way Of doing it, though it may
,e the English way and the free trade way.