West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1888-05-24
KNUrE NELSON ON TnETARIFF.

side Of the House squirm when he gets
up to speak on the tariff question would
lead one to suppose that he was "Hor-
izontal' Morrison's sole legatec.
The Hon. Knute isn't ashamed Of
his heresy Quite the contrary; and
frequently has he taken occasion to
speak his mind. Here is how he began
one of his speeches
Mr.. CHAIRMAN With a surplus Of
over 800, 900, 900, taken from the peo-
pie by taxation, Of which over $50,
100000 is now being kept and used,
without any recompense or revenue, by
certain national banks, termed Govern
ment repositories, and with this sur
plus steadily and ever increasing so
that by the end of the fiscal year, I'M
less legislative relief from taxation is
given, there is certain to be a surplus
of upwards of $3.50, 900, 900, it seems
to me to be idle, uncalled for, and un-
fair to enter into any mere theorizing
or platitudes on the advantages or dis
advantages of free trade or protection.
This seems to me to be too much like
Nero holding high carnival while Rome
was burning. This is not the practical
issue now joined by the logic of events
Neither is it exactly relevant, while
the country is in this state of overtax-
alton, to indulge in epithets or to call
every honest friend of tariff-tax reduc-
ton asfree trader or an enemy of Amer
lean labor. This style of argument is
too much like that of Fagin's pupil,
when, having picked some ones pocket,
he Justify shouted Thief !" to draw
attention away from himself the real
culprit.
Mind the foregoing is not from the
lips of any Democratic member of the
Ways and Means Committee, but from
Hon. Knute Nelson, Republican Rep
rescntative from Minnesota, elected by
a good majority of Minnesota Repub-
lican votes. But let us investigate fur
Their. Continuing, this hereto and
leader of host of heretics, says of
tariff taxes:
These taxes may properly be divided
into two great heads, namely: Purely
revenue taxes, such, for instance, as a
tax on tea and coffee, and protective
taxes, such as are laid on products com
mon to this country. All tariff taxes
not purely revenue taxes, arc to some
extent or in some degree, protective,
except in those instances where Nature
has given US practical monopoly. as
in the case of petroleum. cotton etc. or
where there is great overproduction
dependent on export trade, as in the
case of wheat.
When we come to tariff taxes on pro-
ducts common to this country we enter
the domain of protection" and have
reached a practical question a tariff
on a commodity we readily produce,
where our production does not quite
equal or exceed our consumption, is, as
a rule and to the degree of the tariff
tax laid, protective. Where the tariff
IS very low the protection will be slight
and the revenue quite ample. Where
the tariff is very high the duty will be
more than protective; it will breed
monopoly, and yield no revenue what
soever. The primary object of a pro-
tective tariff is to enlarge and expand
our field of production in those direc-
tions in which we are fairly open to ex-
pansion. for do not believe a protec-
tive tariff is justified in those cases
where Nature has put a veto on the
power Of expansion, and where revenue
rather than increased production seems
to be the chief result, as in the case of
sugar.
Coming to the question Of the de-
gree Of protection that ought to be
given in a case whore protection is fairly
warranted, it seems to me that only 80
high duty should be laid as will fairly
cover the difference in the cost Of pro-
duction here and abroad, be it in labor.
raw material or interest on capital.
r = Where such a tariff tax ex-
ceeds in a material degree this measure
! term it high tariff It then be-
comes more or less prohibitiye, breeds
monopolics, and works injury both 70
The consumer and the laboring man.
The price Of labor is primarily gov
erned by the law Of supply and de-
maud. The protected producer does
not measure the wages he pays by the