Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1888-08-13

was eos, 800, 1868, and The amount or
duties collected, eco, 1859 Nearly the
whole duty was levied on tea, tobacco
and wines, which that country does not
produce at all, and on spirits, which 1t
taxes whether produced at home or i'm
ported.
Free trade means the levyiEg of duties
for revenue only, in such a manner as to
help home industries as little as possible.
The free trade theory is that home in
dustry cannot be helped through the
levying of duties on imports without tax
Ing the many for the benefit OF tas few.
Free trade, therefore, imposes duties as
far as possible upon articles which are
not products of home industry, and omits
or abolishes or reduces duties of a pro
tective character as far as the necessities
of revenue will permit.
This simple explanation makes it clear
that he who asks about the f"average rate
of duties upon imports" as if that deter
mined the character of the tariff, is sadly
in need of education. The tariff which
Henry Clay advocated was protective, be-
cause it Disseminated in favor of home
industry; that is, it preferred duties
which would encourage production at
home to duties which would encourage no
production at home. The tariff which
Mr.. Mills advocates discriminates against
home industry; it prefers duties which do
not encourage protection at home, and
cuts down or abolishes In preference
duties which do encourages protection at
home.
"Why insist that Democrats favor free
trader" Because it Is true; because they
boast that it is true, because their action
in congress would be simply idiotic if it
were not guided by free trade beliefs and
principles. When British journals say
that President Cleveland uses the precise
arguments which British free traders have
been using for fifty years they tell the
exact truth. British journals and British
gentlemen doanot conceal their profound
contempt for American politicians who
want free trade but have not the man
hood to say so.
But how will abolition of the tariff on
wool reduce wages in WOODEN manufac.
ture2' asks a reader. That is q question
prompted by the free trade theory that
duties which protect do not affect wages.
Every protectionist understands u that
production of American wool must largely
diminish if foreign wool is admitted free;
l0 that many looms which are adapted to
use f1LLieIlcal WOOL Ouly muSb luefelOr9
cease running in that case; (3) that de-
p~endence upon foreign sources of supply
must close many other mills, unless the
rate of wages here falls to something like
the German level; az that the reduction
In duties on wooden goods from 70 to 40
per cent, with unde~rvaluations of all
woelens, specific duties being abolished,
would close other mills ~ the thousand;
and (0 that when part of the labor in
any great industry is unemployed q de-
preston of wages in that industry is the
Inevitable result.
Sin what way was the country less
prosperous under the revenue or free
trade tariff of 1860 than it is now?' The
wages of labor are now at least IS per
cent. higher than they were in 1860, and
every dollar received viii buy more
necessaries and comforts of life-more of
all the products of industry taken in pro.
portions as they are actually consumed
than 1920 would have bought in $780,
New York Tribune,