The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1888-08-25

almost microscopic In Its minuteness,
and the party leaders know just what
they are talking about when they claim
the electoral vote Of the State rs
assured.-M Y. Cor. Chicago Herald.
-
VIEWS OF REPUBLICANS.
Grant, Garfield, Arthur, Seward and viii
son rs Revenue Reformers.
Upon what meat doth the latter-day
Republican Caesar Of high protection
feed, that his unreasoning and uncom-
promising attitude should bring re-
proach upon the moderation OF the
wise elders and grand old pillars of the
partyp
Grant, Garfield, Arthur, Seward,
Sumner and Wilson are great names,
and numerous lesser ones could be
cited, all OF which are identified with
protection, and yet every one is on
record as either actively advocating or
emphatically supporting changes in
the existing tariff, which Henry Cabto
Lodge now declares "would break
down the entire protective system
within two years."
The Mills bill cuts off less than one
eighth Of our present customs revenue.
Had 1t been introduced by some Re-
publican under President Arthur's Ad-
ministration it would have been re-
garded by safe and cautious Republic
ans as measure containing substan-
TALLY the recommendations of the
President in his repeated messages to
Congress. To-day it is met with deris-
ion and dread as threatening over
ture to free trade'' by the same Re-
publican journals that praised Arthur's s
message of December 4, 1882, in which
he used these words:
The present tariff system is in many respects
unjust 1t makes unequal distributions, both
| Of Its burdens and its benefits. This fact was
practically recognized by o majority Of each
House OF Congress in the passage Of the act
creating the tariff commission. The report OF
that commission will be placed before you at
| the beginning Of this session, and will, trust,
afford you such information as to the condition
and prospects OF the various commercial, agri.
| cultual, manufacturing, mining and other in
terests Of the country, and contain such sug-
| gestions for statutory revision as will practi.
cally Aid your action upon this important sub
! ject.
| Without entering into minute detail, which,
| under present circumstances, is quite unneces-
| sary, recommend an enlargement of the free
| list so as to include within it the numerous
| articles which yield inconsiderable revenue, q
| simpliflcation of the complex and inConsist stent
| schedule OF duties upon certain manufactures
| particularly those of cotton, iron and steel
and substantial reduction OF the duty upon
those articles, and upon 5ugar, molasses, silk,
wool and woolen goods.
| Eighty years previously President
Grant, in his annual message to Con.
gress, had advocated the very idea in
relation to free wool which is now EN-.
bodied in the wool clause of the Mills
bill, and which we are told would
break down the entire protective sys
tenn within two years. In his message
OF December Z, 1874, we read:
The introduction, free of duty, OF such wool.
| as we do not produce would stimulate the
manufacture of goods requiring the use O
| those we do produce, and therefore would be 9
| benefit to homo production.
As far back as 1857 Senator Wilson
speaking on tariff bill under discus
sion in that year, said:
The manufacturers, Mr.. President, make nj
| war upon the wool-growers. They assume tina
| the reduction Of the duty on wool, or the repea
| OF the duty altogether, will infuse vigor int
that dropping interest, stimulate home pro
duct'on, diminish the importation of foreigl
| woolen manufactures and afford O steady On,
increased demand for American wool.
| Since tho reduction OF duties In England
| since wool was admitted free, her woolen man
ufactures have so Increased, so prospered, tina
the production OF native wool has increased
more than one hundred per cent The expe
! rience of, England, France and Belgium dem
! onstrat6s the wisdom OF that policy whic
makes the raw materials duty free. Let u
profit by their examples.
Senator Seward and Sumner spol1,
on the same bill, and heartily in
dorsed the views Of Mr.. Wilson. I
was in this same year, after havin.
lived eleven years under u low tariff
that Congress voted to make it still
lower, and every Massachusetts mem
ber voted to support the reduction.
| There is hardly single recommen
dation in President Cleveland's las
message but could be backed up, lin
upon line, by the most unimpeachabl
Republican authority. He who shoul
undertake to prove this from the rec
ords of the Congressional debate
since Grants first term would hav
an easy contract on his hands. Sim
liar bills to Mr.. Mills have time an
time again been offered as Republica
measures, and John Sherman is O
record as having within year adve
Gated most of the very tariff revision
which are all of q sudden held to b
SO awful and so dangerously tinge
with I" free trade"
Why has the high protectionist ski
become so raw all at oncep The Mil
bill is essentially moderate and ten
perate measure OF tariff revision, sue
as Grant, Garfield, Arthur and Ion
list Of Republican Congressman hav
repeatedly advocated. So strongly
this bill backed by recorded Republic
an authority that many incline to II
belief that the party leaders are chic
ly distressed because Mr.. Mills h;
taken the wind out OF their sails. TIL
, theory would be more plausible wei
the truculent protected interests ar
their party allies even willing 10 adm
that they were In sympathy with Il
moderate provisions of his bill, und'
any manner Of qualification.
No. the exigency OF the times HI
driven the war tariff extremists to lot
:. horns squarely with any attempt to r
y duce tho existing rates of taxatio
" Eunwipcr ,,nny, xuhut fhav n nya an Ion