The freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1886-18??, 1888-10-03
TARIFF FALLACIES.
FACTS EXPOSING THE PARTISAN
TARIFF HUMBUG.

Smithercens the Tariff Bugaboo-No Is
sue That a Party Can settle-The Tariff
Friend of Rum.
In talking with prominent Democrat
the other day, we asked him to explain to
us the exact difference between Republi-
cans and Democrats on tho question Of
free trade why, he said, confdentially,
fsthere isn't any zeal difference" what,
then, is the reason for this apparent con-
test on the question: His reply was
''1t is just to give the leaders Of the cid
parties some issue to fight over; they can't
60 before the people with nothing to talk
about" We believe this states the case
exactly. There are, OF course many per-
sons to whom this is an important issue;
but so far as the two old parties are con-
cerned, their leaders are conducting sham
battle. There is no fundamental differ
absolutely .none-between the two
parties; the difference is altogether ON
details, and partisan considerations solely
and only determine that difference. Look
at it moment. The Republicans object
to free wool. but clamor for free sugar
Why? Because in states where the Re-
publican strength lies, wool raising is an
important industry and the making of
sugar is not. The Democrats just reverse
this attitude The Mills bill puts wool,
and lumber, and salt, and jute and flax
on the free list, but leaves sugar protect
ed by tariff of about 40 per cent. Talk
about one party's being protection party
and the others being free trade party rs
absurd. The abstract theory of free
trade and protectio does not come within
q thousand miles of the question.
Another fallacy is this: that this ques-
ton of regulation in tariff rates can be
justly settled as q partisan question.
That such regulation is necessary from
time to time has been admitted by every
prominent leader in either old party for
the last twenty yeats. That is agreed on.
But when it comes to fixing the details of
kqch regulation, then it becomes con-
tict OF local and selfish interests alone.
Some scheme may indeed be agreed on,
h itl, as in the Mills bill it will be
scheme which is determined by local and
sectional considerations, not by just
principles of political economy, The Re
publican senators arg ct this writing
wrestling over some scheme OF regulation
that will suit them all, and it is a clash
Ing of local interests pure and simple.
They may evolve something that they
can all stand by, but it's features will not
be determined by economic principles, but
by partisan considerations.
Another fallacy is that this is a ques-
ton to be determined by popular vote.
If it were an issue between the general
policy of free trade or that of protection
it might properly be SO determined. But
it is an issue on the details of tariff regu-
lation, and there is not ono voter in one
thousand who does not feel himself in
competent to vote on those details with
comprehensive intelligence. What can
a man in Iowa know about the precise
amount of protection needed by the sugar
industry Of the south? What can the
Timber merchant in Michigan know about
the precise amount of protection that the
iron baron of Pennsylvania ought to have
on his pig iron and steel rails2 On such
questions as that of state rights, of
the resumption of specie payment,
of internal improvement by the Fed
eral government, of civil service re
form, of the reduction of immigration, of
prohibition of the liquor tratfic-on these
and similar questions of governmental
policy, the voters in Iowa, in Louisiana,
in Michigan and in Pennsylvania are all
equally competent to decide intelhgently.
But ON a question of whether the tariff
on steel rails should be lowered per
cent. or per cent, whether the tax on
wooden goods should be 60 per cent. or 40
Wnetnef SalU should DO on the Treo list, or
whether tin should have ,tariff-how
can these questions of detail be decided
Alright by popular vote? The only way
IN which it should be done is either by
congress acting in non partisan way
land that can be hoped only when the
question becomes anon;partisan question:
or by tariff commission of industrial ex-
perts.
The New York Press gives us diagram
= of two vessels connected by tube. In
the middle of the tube is spigot which
prevents the water from one vessel run
ming into the other. One vessel contains
large quantity of water rising but half
way to the top, and that is supposed to
represent the level of labor in the Old
World The other vessel contains water
rising two-thirds of the way to the top,
representing the level of labor in this
country. open the spigot in the tube,
and what will be the result7" is asked.
The answer is, the spigot is already open.
The testimony before the immigration
committee proves this, if there were need
of proof. There is nothing that keeps the
labor. of the Old World from flowing to
the New except the Atlantic, and the
tariff has nothing to do with that.
The truth is, this tariff issue is ficti-
tious issue, from first to last, as presented
today. There is nothing in it to cause a
Prohibitionist to turn aside for a moment.
AS an industrial question alone it doesnt
bepin to cOmDara with he Ouestiop or