St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-10-15
A Mastery Presentation Of
the Tariff Issue by a Con-
verified Republican,
Whose Investigation Of the
Subject Forced Him to
Change His Views.
A Tariff Above What Is Nee
essary for Public Ex-
penseS an Evil.
How English Manufacturers
Compete With Us in Spite
Of "PpOtectiOn."

The two principal parties now in ex-
istence disagree upon the question of
tariff, and that question is the real pO-
litical issue before the American peO-
pie in the pending campaign. One
party holds that this tariff tax ought
net to be greater than is necessary to
defray, economically, the expenses of
the government, that is, tariff for reve-
nue. only. The other party holds that
the revenue is only incidental, and that
the chief object of the tariff tax is pro-
lection to American industry, that is,
tariff for protection, which furnishes
incidental revenue. And it is urged by
that party-and that is the question at
issue-that tariff tax sufficient
to maintain the expenses of
the government is not sufficient for the
purpose OF the needed protection to
American industry, and that therefore
upwards of the enormous sum
lected from and paid by the
people by way of tariff tax in excess of
the amount needed to defray those pub
lie expenses. | believe in the doctrine
of tariff for revenue only. Whether or
not this tariff system is the best method
of collecting the expenses of the gov
eminent is debatable question, but
not question now before the people.
But that tariff tax over and above
what is necessary for public expenses,
under the disguise that it affords pro-
lection to American industry. is polit-
ical evil | believe l can convince all in
telligent people who are not so preju-
diced that they are prevented from CIV
ing their ear to reason. Until recently
/ believed in protection. accepted
that theory because
TWAS A REPUBLICAN,.
Just as we all accept the theories of
others upon questions that we do not
specially investigate. l investigated
the question and was forced to change
my opinion. l now propose to give
some of the reasons that have convinced
me to those people who, without suffi-
cient investigation, have honestly ac-
cepted the theory of others, just as
did. The theory that protection is ben
eficial to the people is as false as its
name is ridiculous. What is it that
protection by tariff prevents? 1t is
trade. But trade, from what protection
assumes to preserve us, is not an evil,
like flood, hailstOrm or tornado. Trade
defending US against trade unless trade
is injurious in some way. But all agree
that trade, for which we can get what
we need for that which we can spare, is
beneficial. But the protectiOnist claims
that it is decided injury to us to get
those good things for which we like to
trade, cheap; that it benefits us
to pay larger prices for less
goods. Could anything be more
absurd? If trade with man [ do so
to better my condition, to get something
that | am in need of for something that
l am in less need of, and if can make
a good trade can it make any difference
to me whether trade with an Ameri-
can or foreigner? If | trade with an
American it neither increases nor de-
creaSes the wealth of this country, but
if | make good trade with foreigner
that is, one in which the value of the
goods give is less than the value of
what receive, that trade benefits the
country as well as me because its ten
dency is to increase the wealth of the
country. And almost all trade between
nations has this effect. In trade be-
tween nations goods are never carried
from a place where they are dear to
one where they are cheap, but always
where they bring a better price. And
hence the life of trade, and
THE MUTUAL BENEFIT
of those nations engaged in the trade.
The prOtectiOnist says that while trade
must take place, and while many of
our necessares of life must come from
other countries, yet as we are situated,
it is well to embarraSs trade to the ex-
tent of putting tariff upon that part
of trade which consists in bringing in
from other countries commodities that
might be produced at home. The OBJ
ject of this tariff is said to encourage
American industries. Now cheerfully
admit that this tax encourages some
body and benefits somebody. But does
it encourage where encouragement is
needed, and does it benefit the people,
the masses, or only few mOnopolists?
This protection is controlled by con-
gress. Now, while it is sad state of af-
fairs, it is yet true, and all admit it,
that millions of dollars year are used
through men whose special business it
is to lobby, as it is called. That is, in
respectable way, to bride the necessary
amount of members of congress to Sc
cure some desired legislation; to pass a
bill to increase the tariff of some man
ufacturer, for instance. Now suppose
some little infant industry just started,
by few of limited means, in the
shape of manufacturing some article
that is unprotected, should make an
attempt to have some legislation eX-
tended so as to protect their industry,
would they get anything? They would
stand about the same chance against
the giant industries that are protected,
that an infant pig would against
FULL-GROwN HOG.
in feed box. How can this protective
tariff be for the benefit of the masses,
individuals? Who receives the benefit
the people who pay this tax or the
manufacturer who gets it? Did it ever
occur to you that its protection requires
you and l to put our hands into our
pockets to pay for it? Not to pay for
the protection of ourselves, but to pro-
tect other people who pay nothing.
And yet this is claimed to be beneficial
and just. 1t is pretended that this kind
of protection is necessary to encourage
men to engage in some business within
the United States which, without pro-
lection, could not prOfitably be carried
on here-that is to say, to engage in
losing industries for the purpose of
carrying them on at home. If this be
true. all protected manufacturers are
engaged in class of business that but
for the protection would be dead loss.
Can it be for the benefit of any man to
be engaged in losing business,
or can it benefit nation to
have a large portion of its inhabi-
tants engaged in losing business?
Or, can it benefit nation to have all of
holN f-ft 90
that lead to financial ruin? Suppose a
man in AIinnesOta to be engaged IN a
business that nets him profit of S25 per
day. That upon small scale would be
a paying business. Suppose the same
man to be engaged in another business.
at the same time, in which he would
lose s25 per day. He would then be
nothing, and if he should con-
tinue both he would probably soon be a