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

cldSScS. die CO1ApcllSu tuSicUy " pay
such high prices for these articles that
they are greatly impoverished thereby,
while the wealth thus unwiSely fiiched
from them is concentrated in the hands
of very few men; and thereby both
classes, considered with reference to
their relations to the public, are injured.
The question that every one must de-
termine when considering the tariff
or excise law is: What does the general
Welfare require, or how will the general
welfare be best and most promoted?
The grant of power by the people of the
United States to congress was power
ito lay and collect taxes, duties, inn
posts and excuses, to pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States"
1t seems too plain for argument that to
lay and collect taxes, duties, lmpOstS
pay the debts or provide for the
common defense and general welfare
is vicious in the last degree and de
structive of the general welfare and
prosperity of the country. But all men
are SO constituted that their judgment
is affected more or less by their sur
roundings, and the local interests of the
communities in which they live and OF
which they form part. No doubt we
are all affected to greater or less de-
gree by the local interests of our state,
for under the tariff and excise laws of
the last twenty-five years she has been
numerically taxed and received but
very slight benefit in return. She is a
great agricultural state. In the sale OF
her products her laborerS and producers
compete with the lowest and most de-
graded labor of the world, for the rea-
son that she has been compelled to sell
her produce either in Liverpool or at the
prices fixed by the Liverpool market.
In that market the farmer Of Minnesota
meets the products of the farmers OF
India, China and Japan, and the free,
intelligent, educated laborer of our
state is fairly brought into competition
with the cheapest and most degraded
labor of the Mongol race. At the same
time, and with the operation of our
tariff laws, our producers have been
compelled to purchase their supplies in
the highest market i'll the world, and
being compelled to sell all their pro-
ducts in the lowest and to buy all that
they consume in the highest markets, is
it strange that they are burdened with
debt and complain bitterly of their pow
erty and ill success when compared
with other classes of the community?
1t seems to be admitted now that this
taxation is not necessary to enable the
government to pay its debts OF provide
for the common defense, and that the
welfare of no considerable portion of the
people of the United States is promoted
thereby. In dealing with the tariff and
tariff laws the public interests are too
often lost sight of and private interests
usurp their place in the mind OF the
legislator. To me it always has been in
comprehensive how the public welfare
is subserved by compelling the people
of the United States to pay Sl00, 100000
a year tariff on sugar at time when the
treasury does not need the money, upon
the plea of protecting the producers of
sugar in Louisiana, whose aggregate
production is but SIC, 600, 600, upon which
the tariff at most increases the value to
is, Which is the public interest, the $780,
600 interest OF the $lO0,00O,000 interest,
| must confess that have never been
able to see this in only one light. The
people of Minnesota consume about
sixty pounds per capita OF sugar an
nually, and upon this sugar they are
called upon by the laws to pay into the
treasury a tax of nearly S2,000,000. and
this has been so for many years and has
tended greatly to impOverish the pro-
ducers of Minnesota. 1t is said the
sugar tax is the least Objectionable, be-
cause what is paid go into the treas
lry instead of the hands of monopOlistS
and private individuals. This is true,
and have used it only as an illustra-
tiOn of the working of the tariff rather
than for the purpose of indicating that
l am in favor of the reduction Of that
particular duty. This tax upon sugar
has had the effect, and it is represented
will again have the effect, of holding
the votes of all the congressman OF
Louisiana for all the high protection
absurdities connected with the tariff
laws. So it is said that the tariff ]
upon lumber will, if it has
not, induced the Republican MEM
bers of Minnesota to sustain the same
vicious legislation. So far as lumber
produced in Minnesota is consumed
therein, the tariff laws can have no eff
feet upon the public welfare of the
state. What is bought by the consumer
is paid for to the producer, and both
being MinnesOtians, the general wealth
remains the same, while the owner of
the lumber has, by operation Of the law,
been able to make the consumers pay
50 per thousand more than he otherwise
could have received. This, in my judg-
ment, is vicious and giving one man or
class of men the advantages of law,
while the ether class are placed greatly
son can be trusted to withstand this
temptation. He is not weakened nor
in doubt, although l have no right to
speak for him and know nothing Of the
views of Mr.. Lind. SO in going through
with the almost endless list of articles
included in the tariff schedule, there
seems to be many which have no place
there if the public welfare is consulted,
but which seem to be thrown in to pick
up struggling votes here and there all
over the country. The same is true of
the excise law. Why it is proper to
abolish all the excise tax Oh tobacco and
not reduce the tariff on sugar, l am UNI
able to tell. One commodity is con-
sumed by men largely in places of pub
lie resort, of whom it would not be safe
to say that they are the most industrious
and thrifty class; the other article is
consumed largely by women and chill
dren and considered an article of prime
might think that he saw the point in
this that men vote and that women and
children do not vote, and that this is the
extent to which the general welfare is
consulted upon this question. | have
written enough to show why oppose
protection as it now stands in
the law. Your next question is,
ssFree Trade-Is it demanded now?'
My answer is, no, and never can be de-
manded i'll this country, for the reason
that we have great and expensive gov
eminent that requires an enormous rev.
enue tor its administration. And really
these words, free trade, have no place
in our political vocabulary. We must
have revenue, and the sentiment is al
most universal that the revenue be
raised from impoSts. If the question
were wholly new. if the government
had not pursued the policy that has in
vited capital to enormous investments
in the production of manufactured ar
tieles protected by tariff, and it were