St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-17


be in the hands Of a comparatively few,
while the political power will remain in
the hands of the masses and a result be
reached disastrous to all classes and
all interests. and to the government
itself; and hence / believe that it is the
duty OF all patriotic men to labor zeal
ouSly to bring taxes of all classes,
whether imposts or excise, down to the
lowest point compatible with the proper
administration of the government, and
the reasonable protection of such indus
tries as have been built up under exist
ing laws.
"A. E. Haven, Faribault, Editor
oppose sO-called protection, because it
is not protection, but spoliation, tribute,
exaction, monopoly, plumber; because
congress has no constitutional power to
levy a tax in which revenue is sacri-
feed to the object OF enriching one
man and one section of the country to
the impoyerlShment of another man and
another section; because it levieS and
sarily, and is thereby tying up funds
needed for the transaction of business;
because it encourages and makes pos
Sible the creation of powerful mOnop-
OlieS and combines, whose exactionS are
sapping the life blood of our agricultural
interests; because it has ruined our
merchant marine and depopulated our
ship yards: because it has ruined our
produce market in the old world, and
utterly failed in giving promised COM
pensation through increased home con-
sumption; because, with few eXcep-
lions, it has never been of benefit to the
mechanic or the labOrer, and is now
only benefcent to capital when capital
is in conflict with laber. Free trade is
not demanded now. | certainly would
not repeal the internal revenue on
either whisky or tobacco. l would re-
duce the tariff Oh all articles to the low
est limit consistent with the legitimate
demands of revenue and such outside
articles as are used in manufacturing
and belong to the common necessities of
life should be free.
G. f. Macdonald, St. Cloud, Ed
itor-I am opposed to protection" be-
cause it is ''war tax" the necessity for
which has long since passed away; be-
cause it enriches few at the expense
of the many: because it cripples our
NtiiSt ilGto uCOtlOyCu Jul COAi-
merce; because it is an outrage upon
the farmers of the West Free trade is
not demanded, but the tariff should be
reduced to basis sufficient to cover
governmental eXpenSeS-nothing more.
The internal revenue tax on tobacco and
liquors should be retained. | would re-
duce the tariff, as above stated, to such
point as shall not exceed the needs of
the government economically admins
tered.
~
Nelson O. FOss, OrtOnville, Ed
itor-I oppose protection because it is
an outrage that the many shall continue
to be taxed for the benefit of the few.
If few ''infant industries in the East
are unable to stand on their own legs
after half hundred years or more of
Ubiquitous subsidy, then why not let
them die natural death now? The
farmers of the Northwest ask for no
subsidy; they merely will not hereafter
divide their earnings with Eastern mill
ionaire nabObS of pleaSure-ya yacht and rail
road-bond fame. We want free trade pure
and simple, that we may pay only what
an article is worth, and not what pro-
tected monopOlist sees fit to charge.
~
w. Blakely, Rochester, Editor
Protection is class legislation. 1t is
robbery under the form of law" |
would reduce the tariff from $4,000, 900
to S100,000,000.
0. Mason. Window oppose pro-
lection for several reasons. 1t takes by
force of unjust law what belongs to one
class, and gives it to another, without
any recompense. 1t puts all over value
on raw material in many cases, which
in all cases should be as free as the air
we breathe. 1t is no part of a free GOV
ernment to protect one branch of bust
ness moEe than another. To return to
free ira i at once would be disastrous
to the business of the country.
~
Congressman Thomas Wilson,
House of Representatives United
States, Washington, d. c., March 13,
1SSS.-Answering your circular letter
inclosed have to say: First, l oppose
protection as it is now understood and
practiced. l oppose it for the following,
among other reasons: 1t tends, and is
intended, to protect" the rich against
the poor, the strong against the weak,
the favored classes against the masses :;
in fine, its tendency is to build up
monOpOlies and immense fortunes at
the expense of the public generally, and
70 the great detriment of the industries
of the country. Secondly, 1 am not in
favor of free trade. Thirdly, l would
not repeal the internal revenue law, be-
cause | wish rather to raise needed
revenue from whisky and tobacco than
from clothing, blankets and other
necessaries of the people. FOurthly, |
would reduce the tariff, and would
merely raise revenue enough to carry
on the government. economically adj
ministered, pay pensions to Our soldies
etc.
j. l.. TownIey, Faribault-S Sec
ton 8, article /, of the federal constitu-
ton delegating general powers to con-
gress, reads: ''The congress shall have
power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excuses, to pay the debts,
and provide for the common defense
and general welfare of the United
States: but all duties, impostS and eX-
cises shall be uniform throughout the
United States" The right and power
to levy taxes, duties, ETC., for revenue
is democratic and just, and is not dis
puted; and, if such taxation affords any
protection to the industries and citi-
zens throughout the United States, it
should be tolerated and encouraged.
But the claimed and pretended right
and power to continue, by Republi-
can aristocracy, including Vandalism,
protective taxation for the
benefit of the few-Eastern Re
publican ariStocratS-at the eX-
pense of the great masses of the people
is not for the general welfare of the
United States, nor is it uniform through
out the United States. In presenting
the above inquiry we rely upon the con-
coded fact OF our surplus-representing
millions of the peoples earnings, wealth
and money taken from them by protect
i've legislation, and this only represents
the taxes and duties on imports and in