Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1888-01-30
Edmunds on the Tariff.


Among the public men of the coun-
try in the present generation the Hon.
George F. Edmunds, the distinguish
ed senator of the United States from
Vermont, stands as one of the fore
most in reputation for statesmanlike
ability depth of thought, conservative
purpose and shrewd understanding.
His patriotism is unquestionable, and
nobody can or will impute to him any
faint of demagogy. In the February
number of HaTper's Monthly Maya
zine appears paper from Mr.. Ed
munds, written in response to an ar
ticle by Henry Watterson, advocat-
ing a tariff for revenue only, appear
ing in the January number of that
periodical.
Mr.. Edmunds does not take up the
question involved in controversial
spirit and seek to make special is
sues with Mr.. Watterson, although
he INDUCES in occasional courteous
references to the salient features of
that gentleman's argument, but
treats the subject mainly as an orig
inal one vitality concerning the inter
ests of the country and its people.
He shows in course of consecu-
tive reasoning from premises to con-
illusions, illustrated by examples, that
the protection of domestic Industries
from hostile alien competition by
means of customs upon articles of
foreign production is not necessarily
conducive to the establishment of
privileged classes, denies that it has
ever brought about such result in
the United States or elsewhere, and
then proceeds to an elaborate expo
sition of the benefits it confers upon
all interests and the evils which would
inevitably result from an abolition of
the system under existing circum-
stances.
1t is not true that consumers are
burdened to the whole amount of
customs duties or even a very consid-
cradle portion of them, and this point
is demonstrated by the citation of
well-known facts in the history of
Tariff legislation. Capital and labor
both share in the benefits derived
from tariff protection, and through
them the welfare of the people in all
conditions of life is promoted. Wealth
and industry have enjoyed steady
growth under our protective tariff,
and there seems to be no good reason
for a change of policy in that regard
Neither is it necessary to reduce
customs duties in order to diminish
revenue. That course might indeed
augment receipts by stimulating i'm
portations. In Mr.. Edmund's opin-
ion the internal revenue taxes offer a
| sufficient field for the reduction of
revenue, and he believes that both
the production of spirits and tobacco
might properly be made free, so far
as the federal government is con-
cerned, leaving them to the action of
individual states.
Finally, Mr.. Edmunds sets forth
the fallacy of assuming that tariff pro-
lection in the United States operates
as a bar to commerce with foreign
countries, as represented by free
| traders, in the presence of prevailing
conditions, but if that postulate were
granted it must follow that the only
available remedy would lie in cutting
down the cost of producing goods for
export, and with it the wages of labor.
On the whole, in Mr.. Edmund's es-
innate, the blessings of the protective
system far outweigh whatever of in
convenience may be supposed by any
body to attend it. His argument and
deductions are presented with char
acteristic candor and force, and mer-
it careful attention on the part of in
telligent readers.-TrOy Times.
1