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

| between reducing internal revenue or
tariff taxes, / would labor to cheaper
woOlens, linens, cotton fabrics, iron,
steel, salt, coal, and all other staple COM
moditieS, rather than such articles as are
INDUCED in from acquired habit OF
luxurious modes of living.
A REPUBLICAN SENATOR.
Senator Frank A. Day, Fair
mont favor protection only as Pres
ident Garfield did-such protection as
will enable our manufacturers to fairly
compete with the foreign product, yet
| that shall not exceed revenue neceS-
sary to economically run the govern
ment; nor should it be so high as to
drive out the foreign article. l am for
protection that leads to free trade as
soon as possible. | believe that the
present high protective tariff, il contin-
ued, will result in all other nations put
| ting up barriers against our trade, the
result of which will be disastrous to
every American industry. Free trade
is not demanded at once, but that should
be the ultimate aim of our wisest states
manship. l would not repeal the in
ternal revenue system for the reason
that if would afford an excuse for retain
| ing the more burdensOme protective
tariff taxes. The internal revenue is a
tax upon luxuries, and might wisely be
enlarged to include other articles. No
man has right to complain OF taxes on
| what he does not need-On what he can
perhaps more wisely do without. be-
| lieye the obligations of the government
can be met, the running expenses paid,
| that all just protection can be accorded
! to our interests, and disaster avoided to
business generally by tariff reduction
of s100,0oO,00O year.
X
Senator e. M. Pope, Mankato-
| | am in favor of protection for revenues
necessary to an economical admlnistra-
| ton of the government, and l think pro-
lection justified for establishing and
sustaining industries OH the success and
| maintenance of which the public and
| the government depend. / oppose pro-
lection of localities OF individuals when,
as is usually the case, it is at the eX-
pense of the public. do not favor free
trade in the present situation, but would
maintain the internal revenue and con-
slider tobacco luxury, in which l some
times indulge.
T. M. Baker, Anoka-I favor a re-
duction on all goods. Some should only
be slightly reduced, while others ought
to come in free.
HI. G. Van Leuven, Spring Val
ley, EditoF-Am not a protectionist in
the sense that favor high tariff; nor
am l a free trader; am unreservedly
for modified tariff, and would regard
the Inauguration of free trade policy.
in this country, as especially ruinOus.
| would wipe out the gigantic octopus
known as internal revenue: a system at
once repugnant to republic. 1t is a
costly luxury, and serves mainly to feed
and fatten a swarm of spies and in
formers. / would reduce the tariff, or
remove it from the actual neceSSarieS of
life: and so reduce it that it would
yield only revenue sufficient to run the
government.
~
ID. M. De Wore, jackson. Attor-
ney-Protection tends to Capitalization.
1t compels the purchase of necessaries
at inflated prices. 1t is wrong, morally
and physically. Designed for reve-
hue, it has become subsidy.
c. p. Carpenter, Pennington,
Editor am opposed to so-called pro-
lection because l believe it to be an UNI
necessary and unjust tax upon consum-
ers for the benefit of manufacturers;
the tariff on raw material tends to ham
per manufacturers themselves and op-
crates against the interests of laboring
men. Absolute free trade is not de-
manded now, in my opinion. Any ap-
oh l,n
conservative care, so as not to demoral-
| ize the business of the country. / should
| favor reductions as will reduce the reve-
hue to that point where further ac-
emulation OF surplus will cease.
Rev. Sam G. Smith, ST. Paul
do not favor the general policy of a
| protective tariff. do not think free
trade is demanded now. l would not
repeal the internal revenue. | ana de-
cidedly in favor of tariff reduction
Reduction ought not to be made in such
| radical way as to disturb the business
| of the country, OF to do violence to prop
critics which have grown up under our
present system. But it seems to me
that the price of the farmers neeessi-
| ties ought ultimately to be fixed in the
1 same market and by the same cOndi-
| tions as the price of his commodities.
am inclined to the opinion that all
raw materials used in manufactures
ought to be put Oh the free list at once,
| and all articles of common use, articles
needed in the life of our working peo-
pie, should be made free as soon as
practicable. There ought to be imme-
| diate and extensive tariff reduction.
go
Judge w. III. Campbell, Orion
ville-Protection is unjust and free
trade demanded. / would repeal the
internal revenue and reduce the tariff
to the government needs.
~
| George FL. Claggett, Montevideo,
| Northumberland is mirage, de-
ceiving the poor working man and lead
ing him directly into the quicksand
beds of slavery to the monopolist. Free
trade is domestic as we'll as divine
law. ''DO as you would be done BY"
! We should adopt free trade as fast as
| circumstances will permit, especially On
all neceSSarieS OF life. Internal revenue
| is clog, tied to mad dog. 1t should
be heavy enough to terribly bother said
| dog from doing violence to people. I
would favor reducing the tariff enough
to compel every TRUST" or ''combina-
ton" to meet such competition as will
scatter them effectually.
~
Gen. John b. Sanborn. st. Paul
Your first question is ''PrOtecton-why
do you favor or oppose it?' My answer
is that l oppose it as it now exists be-
cause too great protection is afforded, but
am i'm favor of it in some lesser degree
because in my judgment the public
welfare requires it. The duty on
many articles of import is now so
: high that little Or no revenue is derived