St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-03-17

favored class of our people who are en-
gagged in manufacturing goods.
L think the internal revenue tax
should not be repealed. Let it remain
as it is. 1t is not oppressive or unjust.
1t is imposed mainly on spirituOus,
vinOus and malt liquors, tobacco and ma
tional banks. If people want to use
liquors and tobacco let them pay the
tax. They do not belong to the neceS-
saries of life, and the less the people use
of them the better they are off. The
banks do not need protection; they are
rich enough now.
The tariff tax ought to be reduced at
least S75,000,0 900 per year, and no more
money, under all forms of taxation,
ought to be collected from the people
than the necessities of the treasury un-
der an honest and economical admins
tration of the government requires.
M
President Cyrus Northrop, of
the State University---Free trade is
not demanded now, and only partial
repeal of the internal revenue. l would
reduce the tariff very much.
Frank Il. Randall, Winona, Law
yer-I oppose protection because it is
unjust and unnecessary. Free trade is
not demanded nor the repeal of in
ternal revenue. The tariff should be
reduced to the needs of the government.
~
Fred Puhler, Ada, Editor-I Op-
pose protection because the manufact-
uring interests and capitalists have been
made rich enough at the expense of
the producing and laboring interests.
1t has killed our merchant marine-it
has destroyed the market for our pro-
duce. There Is no use of a war tariff in
time of peace. Give all an equal
chance. 1t is not quite time for free
trade entirely, but scale the tariff down
at least S90,000,000 now, and you will
have free trade in less than twenty
years.
j. j. Alexander, Northfield, Far
mer-At the close of nearly century
of protection we are handicapped fl We
times more than when we started Free
trade is practically demanded now.
j. Nj. Spicer, WiIlmar-The Mills
bill contains some excellent provisions
looking towards the reduction of the
tariff, but l hardly think he discrimi-
mates properly as to the articles for
which the tariff should be taken. am
opposed to the protective tariff as it
now is, for the reason, among others,
that it in many instances operates in
juriously to Western interests.
~
j. s. Tripp, Northfield, Merchant
Protection is ostensibly for the pro-
lection of the wage workers of the land.
The only way the laborers can be pro-
tected is by prohibiting immigration,
thereby removing competition. This,
however, is not desired. The workers
in the protected industries are the poor
est paid of any labor in this country.
Therefore there is no valid excuse for
on these grounds. Free trade is not de-
manded at this time. While it should
ultimately be adopted by this country,
it must come by degrees. A tariff for
revenue only is what is now demanded.
The tariff should be reduced so as to
bring only enough revenue to cover the
expenses of the government. Tobacco
and whisky should be heavily taxed.
~
T. M. Ryan, Anoka.-I am in favor
of reasonable protection for American
manufactures, say for revenue only.
Am not in favor of high protective tariff
as at present constituted. Am not in
favor OF free trade in general, but
would be in favor of admitting raw ma
terials used in manufacturing here. /
would repeal internal revenue on the
poor mans tobacco.
~
@. l.. Baldwin, Glenwood.-Our
manufactures have had government
protection long enough, and it is about
time that the farmers and people at
large should have little protection.
Free trade is needed OH some articles, if
it ever was. and there is no time like
the present to put on the free list those
articles that are necessary for the life
and comfort of the masses. AS to inter-
nal revenues on whisky and tobacco, if
any change whatever is made, let it be
increased.
~
James j. Green, LIE Sueur, Ed
itor-I oppose protection (tariff) be-
cause it is wrong in principle, corrupt
ing in effect, and, while creating and
fostering monopoly, it lays an unjust
burden upon labor without any appreci-
able resulting benefit. Taxation should
be for public, not private. purposes.
Would not repeal internal revenue. at
present at least. Would reduce tariff to
extent of putting most necessaries of
life upon free list, and would put the
tariff upon its proper basis-for revenue.
~
John 8. Pillsbury, Minneapolis,
Miller-I think this nation has had
wonderful prosperity under the opera
tion of the tariff as now constituted, but