Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1888-01-11

dent and his followers sought to tax ar
ticles such as tea and coffee, in order
that greater reduction might be made
on articles that come in competition with
home production. If the object were to
reduce surplus revenue, what better
mode, Che asked) could be sug-.
gested than to repeal one-half
the duty on sugar and thus directly
relieve the people from $2S, $50, 900
OF taxes on an article in most general
use, and now bearing tax of 50 per
cent. !? No such suggestion was made by
the President or the secretary of the
treasury; and he (Mr. Sherman) did not
care to explain the reasons tor their
silence. He believed in protecting all
home industries, without respect to sec
ton, or to the place or manner of pro-
Observation-Disclosures on the tarm or in the
shop; but if protection was not the OBJ
nue. was the great evil to be dealt
with, why not give relief to the people
by reduction of tax on sugar? The eff
fort to produce sugar in the United
States in quantities at all approaching
the demand had failed though protected
by the highest tariff rates.. Still, In view
OF the hopeful prospects OF produ eng
sugar from beets and sorghum cane, as
we'll as from sugar cane, he would not
cripple that industry by reducing pro-
tective duties, except by giving the pro-
ducers of domestic sugar bounty equal
to the reduction of duty on the imported
article.
PROTECT THE WOOL-GROWERs.
No reason could be given why wool
should be made free, and wooden goods
should be protected. If there must be
cheap wool there must be cheap wool
ems; and ifthe labor of the farmer in
producing the wool was not protected
against undue competition with Austria
liza or Buenos Ayres, then that of the
cloth maker should not be protected
against competition with the looms OF
Manchester or Lyons. If there were low
duties on iron ore, there would have to
be low duties on iron and steel in all its
forms. The farmer performed as valu-
able labor as the artisan and the rights
of every producer should have equal
and Just consideration without fear or
favor. And vet the President has
selected that class of production under
the name Of raw materials" for destruc-
ton, and had especially selected wool as
an article not to be protected. His
whole argument rested on the allegation
that the price Of wool was increased
to the extent of the duty and that, but
tor the duty, the merchant could buy
this wool cheaper in South America and
Australia. This argument was falla-
cious, because the destruction Of the
wool industry in the United States
would at once advance the price of
wool in foreign markets. But even II
the argument were true 1t would apply
as we'll to all domestic productions
and to all manufactures. Wool was
the completed article of the
farmer, just as cloth was of the manu-
facturer, and as the coat was OF the tai
Tor; and the objection that the duty on
wool raised the price to the consumer
applied as we'll Off true) to the duty on
cloth and on every article on the tariff
list. The all-sufficient answer was that
the duty encouraged the production of
wool, the manufacture of CLOTH and OF
the infinite variety Of articles produced
by American labor, competing with for
eign labor.
ENCOURAGE HOME INDUSTRIES.
The object Of the tariff laws was to
encourage home manufacturers IN COM
petition with foreign rivals as we'll as to
secure revenue; and therefore, these
laws should be as permanent as possible,
consistent with the needs of the govern
ment. American citizens were encour-
aged to invest their money in expensive
machinery and buildings but they had
no special privileges, no monopoly. All
the world might in this country, enter
into competition with them. The
President, however, seemed TO think
that they were public enemies. To
chase away the successful manufacturer
by a change OF duties was to leglslate Tor
| the foreigner and against the American
citizen. The most important benefits
conferred by the tariff laws was they
| not only diversified American indus
tries, but secured to the laborer en-
ployed in manufactures higher wages
and better surroundings and advantages
than were enjoyed by laborers in
similar employments anywhere in
the world. The treatment of this ques-
ton by the President was delusion
and a snare. The President assumed
that the cost OF living Especially of food
and clothing was higher in the United
States than in Europe). That was not
true. Food of every kind Except sugar)
was cheaper here than in any market in
Europe. The clothing worn by work
ingmen including blankets, was sold
here at as low prices as in London or
Liverpool. The quantity and quality or
food OF labOrlng men were confessedly
better and greater here than in Europe
and the rate Of wages was from so to 100
per cent. higher here. The President
did not dispute these points, but APP
peaIed to the manufacturer (Who had
been represented as robber, conspir-
ator and extortioner) not to reduce the
workingman's wages, but to pay more of
the surplus profts-profts very often
found on the wrong side of the ledger.
LABOR MUST NOT BE CHEAPENED.
The Republican party had declared it
to be the duty Of the government to levy
enough duties so as to secure laboring
men such wages as would enable them
to support, maintain and educate
properly their wives and children.
Cheap labor in this country meant the
degradation Of American politics. He
had thus endeavored Che said), to give a
respectful answer to the Presidents
message. He was willing according to
the Republican national platform Of
1884 to correct the irregularities of the
tariff and to reduce the surplus-not by