St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-31
A REPUBLICANS VOICE.

A REPUBLICANS VOICE.
e. j. Hodgson Evidently Desires
Low Taxes More Than He Does
Republican Protection.
E. j. Hodgson.a prominent Republican,
of st. Paul, and a member of the Anti
Tariff League of Minnesota, sent to the
GLOBE too late for its tariff issue of two
weeks ago the following letter:
will endeavor to answer your ques-
tons in the order propOunded. PRO
tection-why do you favor or oppose lt?''
/ oppose it because if some people or
Industries are protected, some other
people OF industries must do the pro-
tecting. If some people must receive
bonuses in order to induce them to do
their share of the work of the country,
some other people must pay those
bonuSes-nOt for one year, or five years.
or ten years, but every year as long as
they live. If some men are empowered
to levy tribute ON their fellow citizens,
the latter must pay the tribute. The
money will not come as the free gift of
earth or air or sea, but it must and does
come from the toll and sweat of the
labOring millions. and from nowhere
else. IIdoeS not come frome people out
side our own country, for we are talking
about protective tariff, and not a rev.
enue tariff. 1t does not come from idlers,
vagabonds, thieves and robbers. And
lastly, it does not come from the wealth
of the country. These bonuses are paid
as part of the price of what we buy to
eat, to wear and to use. But wealth, in
the form of gold, silver. bank deposits,
stocks, bonds, notes and mortgages,
ofc
except vault to lodge in, and cOnse
uuently pays no part of the enormous
sum that the masses pay for so-called
protection. Now, if it were right that
some men should perpetually be paid
bonuses to help them run their private
business, still, any scheme that cOmpels
the masses to pay those bonuses, and al
lows the wealth of the country to escape
its just proportion, is tyranny, injustice
and robbery. Again the wealth that
goes into houses, stores, mills, factories,
warehouses, etc., built to rent, takes
into consideration, when it makes the
leases. the enhanced price paid for ma
terial and charges it up to the renter,
who ultimately pays it. The wealth
that goes into merchandise adds the in
creased cost to the price, and the con-
sumner ultimately pays the bonuses.
The wealth that goes into railroads,
steamboats, and all carrying apparatus
cOmpelS its patrons to pay the extra
cost that protection made necessary.
am opposed to protection because it is
not only monopoly itself, but it fos-
tiers, encourages and creates other mo-
nopolies. 1t cOmpelS consumers to buy
from certain persons and prevents them
from buying from others, no matter how
cheap those others could sell. Com
petition and monopoly are the Oppo-
sites of each other. Protection re-
stricts competition and therefore
favOrs monopoly. Some men seeing
their neighbOrS are protected in their
business by the government while they
are not, very naturally say: eve will
make monopoly of our own and see it
we cannot get even with the other fell
lows. We don't propose to be left in
this way" If the government can
justly create monopoly, why not lndi-
viduals? Men are not more honest or
moral OF righteous than the law. All
''trust" combinations could not exist a
moment in free market. l am OPP
posed to protection because it always
assumes a false guise, purporting to be
chased. No man can tell when he buys
an article how much of what he pays is
the real price thereof and how
much is bonus to the manufac-
turer or producer. Suppose every
time a merchant sold a bill of
goods he could, and should, say to the
buyer something like this: "The value
of these goods is 500. and then want
$40 more to send to John Jones q Co.,
the manufacturers, as a bonus, to help
them run their business and pay their;
help decent wages" If protection came
to people in this way every time they
bought protected article, protection
would go down a good deal quicker than
Jonah's gourd sprang up.
"Internal revenue-WOuld you repeal
it?" l would not take one cent off.
Here is man who uses whisky and
tobacco. TO say the least, they are not
necessary to his well-being, and if they
were, his wife and children do not use
them and get no benefit from them. but
generally get good deal of what IS
much worse than no benefit. Here is
another man with half dozen children
who are suffering for sutfcientamOuni
of good warm clothing, on which the
tax is nearly 100 per cent. Which of
these men shall be relieved? Great
God, will the latter half of the nine
teenth century ask such question:?
Free Trade-Is it demanded nOW?" 1t
is not. The ulcer of protection has so
permeated the body polite, the body
commercial and the body social, that it
would imperil the life of the nation to
attempt to remove it at once. We have
not yet reached the question of abso-
lutte free trade. Sufficient to the day
the evil thereof.
"Would you reduce the tariff at all,
and how much?" l should place on the
free list as far as possible of the neces-
saries of life and raw material, and re-
duce nearly, if not quite, the whole
list. This, however, should be done
with much care and judgment. A sud-
den change from wrong policy to
right one might be made worse than the
wrong policy itself. may be going in
the wrong direction, but that is no rea-
son that | should turn so suddenly as to
break my neck. [ would reduce gradu-
ally, but persistently. until there is not
an article subject to impOst duty except
luxuries and such things as we are bet
ter off without. In conclusion, let me
say, in the language of the illustrious
founder of the GLOBE, ''Down with the
tariff"
Found Dead.
PHILADELPHIA, March 30.-An I'M
known white woman, aged apparently