St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-17
A SAGE'S VOICE.

Hon. Morton S. Wilkinson, Wells
I am opposed to all taxes for protection,
but am not opposed to tariff for reve-
nue.. My reasons are these: A tariff
for protection is tax placed upon i'm
ton with articles manufactured in this
country, and this tax is put so high that
the people are forced to buy from the
HON manufacturer. The result is that
this protective duty raises the price of
are obliged to buy, and the increased
price that people are obliged to pay is
the tax which the protective tariff i'm
poses. The most Objectionable feature
of this tax is that not one
cent of it goes into the federal treasury
as revenue; but the whole of it is paid
into the hands of the manufacturer, for
his benefit or protection, as 1t is called.
1t makes no difference in principle
whether this enormous tax which a pro-
tective tariff levieS upon the people at
large, is all paid over to manufacturers,
and for their benefit alone, or whether
it is by them divided up among the oper-
ativeS in their establishments. In either
case this tax, for protection, upon the
whole people for the benefit and pros
perity of small fraction of them, is eS-
Sentially perniciOus, MUST and wicked.
But when you come tOapply this princi-
pie practically to Western states whose
people are nearly all engaged in agri-
culture or dependent upon it, and re-
ceiye no benefit to speak of from this
enormous tax levied upon nearly every
thing that they are compelled to use
upon the farm, then it is that the pro-
tective policy presents itself to the OBJ
ServatiOn of even the wayfaring man
as not only unjust and oppressive, but
as absolutely mOnStrOuS and cruel; and
this, too, Notwithstanding the beans and
potatoes which seem to have ObScured
the vision and befOgged and muddled
the judgment of Congressman Lind.
/ cannot comprehend the justice or
policy of taxing the great body of the
people who depend upon agriculture,
upon everything that they are compelled
to buy, for the purpose of protecting
those who manufacture and sell them
these highly-taXed goods. 1t looks to
me that it comes but little short of COM
polling under the forms of law one
class of WOrkingmen to turn over pOr-
ton of their hard earnings to another
class of men for the avowed purpose of
lettering their condition.
AS to "free trade" / take it for
granted that it is entirely out of the
question at this time. | think it is the
settled policy of the people to raise
large portion of the necessary revenue
for the government by duties upon i'm
ports.
[ know that there is now and then
man who will talk all day if you will
listen to him on the philOSo ply of free
trade. Yet do not think there is one
sensible man in one hundred, in con-
gress or out of it, who either hopes or
desired to see absolute free trade
adopted in this country, at least, for
long time to come.
The tariff for revenue, to which | have
alluded above, seems to be conceded by
all as the proper mode of national taxa
ton, at least for many years to come.
But this tariff is an entirely different
thing from tariff for protection. The
former is familiar, simple and easy
mode of raising money by taxation to
supply the necessary revenue of the
government, but the tariff for protection
is based upon an entirely different
theory. Instead of adjusting the tariff
so as to make its burden rest as lightly
as possible upon the people who pay the
tax, and SO that when paid that tax
should in the main be paid into The gov
eminent treasury, protection demands
that instead of being adjusted for reve-
hue mainly, it shall be framed SO that
the larger portion of this tax upon the
people shall never reach the public
treasury, but shall be paid directly to a