The Bottineau pioneer. (Bottineau, N.D.) 1885-1895, 1888-01-12

XNUNSDAY. JAN. u. 1883.
xFRufMR on TARIFF REFORM.
~ DAVID 4. WELLS.
{Continusd.)
Il il the intent and result Of .
aprotectiyes tariff to restrict exchan.
eesf s'
a. II invariably amounts to the
same thing, whether we make the in.
tsrchange Of commodities costly and
difficult BY interpreting deserts,
swanps, unabridged streams, bad roads
III bands Of robbers between produc-
ers and consumers, or whether, for
the benefit Of some private interests,
that have done nothing to merit it,
M impose q toll on the commodities
transported, and call it q tariff. In
both cases there il 4 greater effort
and N increased cost required to pro-
.duce . given result, and diminut,on
81 the abundancs Of the things which
minister to everybody's necessities,
comfort and happiness. A twenty
per cant. duty is like q bad road; a
fftysper cent. like q broad, deep and
rapid riiyer, without any proper facil-
itiesssfor crossing; . seventy-fve per
cent. like q swamp fanking such a
river on both sides; while q hundred
Der cent. duty, such as is levied upon
steel rails, blankets and window glass,
Is ! band Of robbers, who strip the
merchant Of nearly all he possesses,
and make him not a little grateful
that he escapes with his life.
q. How does a tariff, enacted for
10 called protection" involve the
principle Of slavery?
Any system of law which de-
naiies to an individual the right freely
% exchange the products of his Ia
Dor, by declaring that A, a citizen,
may trade ON equal terms with B,
another citizen, but shall not under
equally favorable circumstances trade
with C, ssho lives in another country,
reafirms in effect the principle of sla.
very. For both slavery and the arti-
fetal restriction Of exchanges deny to
the individual the right to use the
products Of his labor according to his
own pleasure, or what may seem to
him the best advantage. In other
words, the practical working Of both
the system Of human slavery and the
system of protection is to deprive the
individual Of a portion Of the fruits
Of his labor, without making in re-
turn any direct compensation.
@. What is the argument gener-
ally put forth by protcctionists to jus:
tify the restriction Of freedom of ex.
changes?
A. That any present loss or injury
resulting from such restriction to the
Individual will be more than compen.
stated to him indirectly, as a citizen Of
the state
@. Was not this essentially the ar.
gument used to justify slavery?
"A. Yes. The plea for slavery as
serted that the system was really for
the good of the slaves, and that any
deprivation endured by them for the
good Of society-meaning the masters
would be fully compensated to them
through moral discipline, if not in this
world certainly in the world to come.
III made the slave owners, who enact
I'd the laws, the sole judges Of the
question.
@. Have not the same argument,
employed for the restriction Of ex
change. e., indirect OF future In
nfvidual Or social benefit as u justif,
cation for present personal restriction
sr injury-been always used to justify
every encroachment by despotic gov
crnments on the freedom Of the indi
yiidualf
a. Yes; and especially in warran
Of state persecution for heresy or un
belief of enforced conformity will
state religions; Of abridgiDg the lib
erty Of speech and IF tie press anc
pf restricting the right Of suffrage
III short, the restriction Of freedom
IF exchange for the purpose Of sub
serving private interests, il one Q!
those acts on the part Of the state
Wbiicfi are utterly antagonistic to III,
principles of free government; ane
which il fully csrried OH, would b.
ebsolntely destructive Of II.
w IS ! . average lax i'm
posed upon dntiable foreign commod
kties by the United States.