St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-17
A sCANDINAVIAN's SAY.

Luth Jaeger, Minneapolis Jour-
nalist-I oppose protective tariff on
the following grounds: Outwardly it
restricts trade, closing foreign markets
to our products, and shutting ourselves
out from proportiOnate share in those
productions of the outside world, which,
mainly by virtue of natural advantages.
can be produced cheaper and better
abroad. The result of this being re-
taliation on the part of those nations
whose trade suffers from the effects of
our protective policy, our international
relations are disturbed, and dangerous
complications arise. Inwardly, prOtec-
ton gives an artificial stimulus to pro-
duction inviting OverproductiOn and dis
turbing the equilibrium of domestic
trade. 1t enriches the few at the eX-
penSe of them any, and makes it posi-
Bile for individuals and combinations to
obtain control of commodities and en-
nance their price. The evils thus at
tendant upon our policy of protection
would, l think, be remedied by the
adoption of free trade. For this, how
ever, there is no present demand, re-
duction of the tariff to strictly revenue
be accomplished for some time to come.
the protective features OF the present
tariff laws, should be welcomed. AS
to the internal revenue taxes, would
neither repeal nor reduce them until
the tariff had been attended to. Still,
should the latter not be possible of ac-
cOmpliShment without being coupled
with an internal revenue reduction bill,
it would, in my opinion, be wise to ac-
cept such reduction.
~
III. III. Dickmann, Bremen,
Farmer oppose protection, because
it is against the farmer, and would
favor free trade, save tariff for govern
ment support. | would repeal the in
ternal revenue laws and reduce the
tariff to revenue only.
A. G.. Anderson, Carver, Mer-
chant do not favor protection, as it
fosters and creates trusts, and certainly
works against the consumer. ] do not
favor free trade, as that might work the
other extreme, and injure our working
class. AS | understand it, internal taxes
are collected only on tobacco and
whisky; | would certainly let it stand.
Tobacco would not be any cheaper if
the tax were wholly or partially taken
off, and whisky is cheap enough. l
class them both as luXurieS. | favor a
general reduction of the tariff. How
much, am not prepared to say. The
message of the president suits me.
%x*
John n. Powers, MOrristown,
Farmer-1n principle am opposed to
protection, because it is wrong, being
nothing more or less than the selfish in
sticts of the wealthy having the political
strength. Yet the policy of taxation in
that way is sometimes the better way.
Free trade is right, but not policy now.
| would not repeal the internal revenue.
The tariff ought to be reduced, and I
think Morrison's 20 per cent horizontal
reduction was about right.
~
Jonh Il. Diamond, Mankato,
Farmer-Protection is all right if the
manufacturers leave off extortion. If
they won't apply President Cleveland's
message to the tariff Free trade is
un-Democratic. l would not repeal the
internal revenue. 1t is about time that
the tariff gentlemen were weaned from
the high tariff cow.
G. p. Maginnis, Duluth, Farmer
MIR. M. is now in the land Office at
Duluth, but has lived in Minnesota since
1854, and been farmer. II oppose high
protection now, and have done so for