The Portland daily press., 1888-07-07
Some Evidence.

The Hon. William L. Putnam in his adj
dress to the Democrats at City Hall ON
Thursday night said that he believed that
both parties were patriotic and that neither
of them would Intentionally adoptka policy
that would destroy or cripple the Industries
of the country. Let this be granted. What
then? The Democrats advocate tariff for
revenue only, for however much they may
seek to disguise it. that is the ultimate result
Of their policy. The Republicans favor pro-
lection. In imposing duties the former
would only look to their effect in raising
revenue. 1t would select for custom house
taxation such articles as are not and cannot
be produced in this country. because they
would furnish the most certain and constant
source of revenue, which is the only object
that system seeks. The Republicans, on the
other hand, would impose duties with view
not only of raising revenue, but of guarding,
to some extent. American industries from the
competition of foreign Industries. They
would to large extent lay custom house
axation on articles produced in this coun-
try. These two systems are so Numerically
opposite in character that if one produces a
beneficial effect upon the country the other
must produce directly opposite effect
Granted that the Democratic party is advo-
eating a tariff for revenue only under the
hrm belief that such policy will enure to
the advantage of the country, and that the
Republican party is supporting policy of
protection under the same belief, the fact re-
mains nevertheless that one party or the 9TH
er is advocating policy that will be detri-
mi FOL 20 sx&o -.
is 1t? The Republican or the Democratic?
Which policy is 1t that will prove hurtful to
American industries? Protection or Free
trade? The results Of the two policies in
the past, for they have both been tried, have
an important bearing on this question. But
1t is not to this evidence. conclusive as the
Protectionists believe it Is In favor of their
theory. that we propose to appeal at this
time. What we purpose to do now is to
point to the opinions of Americas great
rival in commerce and industry, Great Brit
ain, as evidence that protection is more
beneficial policy for Americans than tariff
for revenue only or free trade. This, some
will say, is an appeal to prejudice. That,
however, is a superficial view and will not
bear examination. England and the United
States are to certain extent rivals. Eng
land wants to sell her goods in our territory.
She therefore mutually favors a policy that
will yield her that privilege. Is it for the
advantage of the United States that she
should have that privilege? Obviously it
cannot be for the advantage of the American
manufacturer, TO have rival who can sell
his goods lower because he can manufacture
80 a. viii it be for the advantage
long run? 1t might be an advantage ten I'M
porarily. They would get for time per-
haps articles somewhat cheaper, but
in the long run they would proba-
bly, discover that they had purchased
temporary cheapness at the expense
Of the existence of industries which gave
employment to thousands of citizens, and
had placed themselves entirely at the mercy
OF foreign monopolies. Promising then
that to grant to British manufacturers the
privilege Of our markets would not be adj
yantageous land this premise is supported
by the weight of evidenced it follows
that fiscal policy that England is anxious
for America to adopt should be viewed with
suspicion. Which policy is it that English
newspapers ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS or tariff
for revenue only? There can be no doubt
on this point. Every British newspaper
that has spoken on this subject has endorsed
Mr.. Cleveland and his free trade message
and condemned the tariff plank of the Repub-
lican platform. There can be no doubt
where their sympathies lie, and their sympas
thies are controlled by their interests. They
favor the adoption of revenue tariff by the
United States simply because such tariff
will open the markets Of the United States
to British goods. The fact that it has the
support of England may not be conclusive
proof that this policy will be disadvanta-
geous to the United States, but it tends
strongly in that direction. 1t is evidence
that is entitled to a good deal of weight.