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

A PROFESSORS VIEW.
w. w. Folw ell. Professor of PO-
1itical Economy in the State Uni
versity-The experience of centuries
has demonstrated that governments can
by their public policy affect favorably
or unfavorabIy the trade and industries
of nations. No system of taxation has
ever been invented and put into prac-
tice which has not operated unequally
upon industries, helping some, hurting
others. Any system of import duties
may, if not cautiously framed to pre-
vent such result, operate to the adj
vantage of foreign producers and to the
disadvantages of home producers. The
principle of protection, which is the adj
juStment of taxation in such way as to
discriminate in favor of and not against
the home producer, is necessarily in
volved in any system of raising revenue
by means of import duties. Whoever
wishes to establish free trade must first
provide some other kind of revenue col
lection. The people of the United
States are accustomed to and committed
to the existing system of raising rev.
enue for the support and uses of the
general government by import duties.
The problem then is how to adjust the
system of duties SO that it shall furnish
a sufficient revenue, favor home indus
tries rather than foreign, and when the
public interests demand, especially en-
courage particular Industries. Univer-
sal protection is of course an abSurdity;
some industries can be protected be-
cause most Industries are Self-prOtective.
Every wise government will provide so
far as possible for the production within
its borders of all things essential to the
military add naval defense of the ma
ton. 1t is also good public policy to en-
courage in the face of long and estab-
liShed and perhaps subsidized cOmpeti-
ton the development of our natural re-
sources when there is promise that
within some reasonable period the in
dustries thus coaxed into existence will
cease to need protection and yield an
average rate of profit. The indefinite
continuance of protection to any branch
of industry needs the justification of
peculiar and urgent circumstances.
In the present historical situation
free trade is seductive dream of closet
economists and statesmen out of office.
The best policy, if it could be agreed to,
would be to continue the internal rev.
enue taxes as war taxes and apply the
proceeds to the purchase of United
States bonds, substantially as proposed
by the Hon. John j. Knox, until the war
debt were Cancelled. Gradual reduction
to result in abolition, when the income
becomes small in proportion to the cost
of collection. is under the circumstances
the proper policy. Taxation is not a
national means of grace, and
taxes should not be imposed merely
fn uir-fu vii
The commodities affected by the internal
revenue system are excellent subjects
of state and municipal taxation. Pre-
suming gradual reduction of the in
ternal revenue, the tariff should be re-
duced until the treasury receipts shall
be as nearly equal as may be to the de-
mandS upon it for the uses and support
of government, but great circumspec-
tlOn is necessary to SO adjust duties that
there shall not be an increase of income
as result of lowering rates. 1t is i'm
practicable to attempt to limit the ex-
peDSeS of government to mere admins
tration and police. Modern peoples use
governments as agencies to promote the
general welfare. Good sense, guided by
experience, is the only safeguard
against excessive expenditure. No eX-
travagant pension, educational, naval or
internal improvement bills should be
passed to furnish preteXt for the per-
petuation of indirect taxes. No protect
i've system ought to survive which inn
plies the necessity of collecting and eX-
pending unlimited sums of money for
an indefinite time. The president has
stated none too strongly the dangers of
surplus revenue.
~
j. M. Bowler, Bird Island, Farmer
Protection amounts practically to a
grievous burden upon the masses to
give excessive profits to a few manu-
facturers, and coal, iron and oil barOns.
The manifest injustice of the thing is
breeding serious and alarming discon-
tent. and if continued will culminate in
revolution or anarchy. Free trade is
hardly practicable at this time, as the
present method of raising the required
revenue could not be so radically
changed without serious results. The
present rate of internal revenue in
jures nobody, and ought to be MAIN
tanned. Import duties ought to be en-
tircly removed from all articles of gen.
eral use and the necessarieS of life, and |
reduced on all other articles to the low
est limit that will produce the amount |
Of revenue actually needed to run the
general government.
~
John A. johnson, ST. Peter, Ed
itor-I oppose protection chiefly be- |
cause it benefits the monopolist at the
expense of the consumer. believe it
to be wrong and lie on it's face. If |
American industries cannot survive eX-
,ept at the expense of the day laborer, |
then let them perish. l believe free |
trade to be in demand now, and that it |
laS been for years. An instantaneous |
change would be unwise though. Would |
not repeal the internal revenue.
80
A. @. Belyea, Elbow Lake. Edi-
tori oppose protection because it ben
its the few at the expense of the many,
md the favored few are mostly in the
districts of the East.
Furthermore, the more you hamper
rade with legislative restrictions the
,reater Is the growth of monopoly. Free |
rade is impracticable. Universal free |
rade would be great boon to the pro-
lucers of the world. l would favor
/ repeal of a portion Of the tax on to-
)acco, but not on liquor. The tariff
,ught to be reduced to a strictly reve-
lue basis, viz: On the lines suggested
n Cleveland's last message.
*x*
William Tubbs, MonticeIlo-On
general principles, oppose protection.
1owever. 1t may be necessary at this
lime in certain cases. I would not re-
In, IN thu ;pforna1 rovoppa op cpiritc apd /