Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1888-08-30


the product which, if brought into this
country, would contend with the products
of our own soil, our own labor, and ouT
own factories, in our own markets. Tn
der this system if the foreign producer
would enter our market with a competing
product he must contribute something
for the privilege which he is to enjoy,
and this something, in the form of du-
ties, goes into the Treasury, furnishing
revenue TO the Government; and these
duties operate to protect the joint pro-
duct of labor and capital against a like
foreign product.
IT HAS A DOUBLE USEFULNESS.
This mode of levying duties answers
double purpose. 1t produces revenue
to the Government, and at the same time
fosters and encourages the occupations
of our own people, promotes industrial
development, opens up new mines, builds
new factories, and sustains those already
| established, which in turn furnish en-
| ployment to labor at fair and remunera-
tive wages A revenue tariff accom-
pliShes but single purpOse-that OF
raising revenue; it has no other mission;
while protective tariff accOmpliSheS
this and mOre-it brings revenue to the
American Treasury and discriminates in
favor of the American citizen. A reve-
nue. tariff invites the product of foreign
labor and foreign capital to occupy ouf
markets free and unreStrained in COM
petition with the product of our own Ia
Dor and capital. \ protective tariff in
vites the products of foreign labor and
foreign capital which are necessary to
the wants of our people (Which We can
not produce in the United StateS) to Oc-
cupy our markets and go untaxed to the
people, but insists that every foreign
product which is produced at home, or
can be successfully, in quantities capa-
BILE of supplying the domestic cOnSump-
ton, shall, whenever necessary to main
tain suitable rewards to our labor, bear
a duty which shall not be so high as to
prohibit importations, but at such rate
as will produce the necessary revenues
and at the same time not destroy but en-
courage American production.
1t is alleged as serious objection to
protective duties that the tax, whatever
it may be, increases the cost of the for
eign as well as the domestic product to
the extent of such tax or duty, and that
it is wholly paid by the consumer. This
objection would be worthy of serious
consideration if it were true, but, as has
been demonstrated over and over again,
it is without foundation in fact. Wher-
ever the foreign product has successful
competition at home the duty is rarely
paid by the consumer. 1t is paid from
the profits of the manufacturer, or divi-
ded between him and the merchant, OF
| the importer, and diminishes their profits
to that extent. Duty or no duty, with
out home competition the consumer
would fare worse than he fares now.
There is not in the long line of staple
products consumed by the people sin
gle one which has not been cheapened
by competition at home, made possible
by protective duties. There is not an
article that enters into the every day
uses of the family which is produced in
the United States that has not been
made cheaper and more accessible as the
result of home production and develop
ment, which was to be secured only by
the sturdy maintenance of the protective
system. While this is true of protective
tariffs, exactly the opposite is true of
revenue tariffs. They are always paid by
the consumer. A duty put upon for
eign product the like of which is not
produced at home, and which enters our
markets free from home competition,
the cost to the American consumer is
exactly the foreign cost with the duty
added, whatever that may be, much or
little.
The protective system but involves
the highest law of nature, that of self
preservation. There is every reason,
founded in justice, why the American
producer should in every constitutional
way be favored as against the foreign
producer, whose products compete with
his. This is our natural market. We
have made it. We have made it after
century of struggle. We have made
it at cost of capital and brain and mus
Gle. We have preserved it against for
eign wars and domestic conflicts, at
great sacrifice of men and money. The
foreign producer has contributed moth
ing to the growth or development of the
country. Whatever influence he has ex-
erted has been against us and to our
detriment. He has nothing in common
with us. He is without the jurisdiction
of our laws. He cannot be reached by
the taxgatherer. He is exempt from all
civil obligations in every part of the
Republic. We can make no requisition
upon him, either in peace or in war.
Our mode of reaching him is through
the product he would send to our mark
cts. We can demand of him that his
merchandise shall make contribution to
our Treasury if he would enjoy the use
of our markets. We can make him
serve us in no other way.
A PRINCIPLE WELL FOUNDED.
In the case of revenue tariff, as l
have pointed out, his product never bears
the burden. Whatever we put upon it
is borne by our own people, and in no
wise shared by him. This principle of
caring for our own is founded upon the
highest authority, human and Divine
1t begins with the family, extends up
through the community, to the State,
and, at last, to the Nation. There is no
city in the country in any section that
does not invoke this principle in the ad-
ministratiOn of municipal government
for the protection and encouragement of
its own citizens. The itinerant vender
is taxed in every city of the land. If he
would expose his wares upon the streets
of Atlanta at public auction, doubt
not the city government compels him to
pay tax for the privilege of doing it,
and that tax is added to the ordinary
revenues of the city to assist in meeting
its obligations. Now, why is this done?
Upon exactly the same principle that we
tax the foreign competing product under
the system of protection. 1t is done to
protect and defend the resident mer-
chants of your city, who are with you
always, within your jurisdiction. subject