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

for enriching the few by taxing the
many. Probably there is not duty,
really ''protective," in the whole list
Which does not owe its origin to the cor
| rupt manipulation of an interested
lobby. From top to bottom our present
| tariff is the embodiment of the selfish
| ness, cupidity, and corrupting influence
of the special interests so protected.
TaxatiOn is not an element of pros
perity. Unnecessary taxation for the
profit of individuals, and not for the
support of the government, is unjust,
perniciOuS, and detrimental to the in
dustries of our people. 1t ought to be
abolished at once and forever. l would
place iron, coal, lumber, sugar, salt,
wool. and all other articles of prime
| necessity upon the free list, and reduce
all other tariff taxes to the minimum
consistent with the requisite revenue
for the support of the government. If
could not do all this at once L would
do as much OF it as | could. The inter
nal revenue need not be touched until
it. too' becomes su E'5a
sSohn @. Wise, MankatO, Editor
lam opposed to protection, for the
reason that there is no authority in the
constitution to levy duties for other
than revenue purposes. Free trade is
not demanded, nor is it practicable.
The large and increasing pension eX-
penditureS render internal revenue
maintenance absolutely necessary. |
would reduce the tariff to the ''necesSi-
ties of the government economically
administered" especially from raw
materials and articles of necessity.
Hon. Knute Nelson's bill meets my
idea nearest of any | have seen.
Ex-senator G. F.. Buck, Winona-
I am opposed to governmental protec-
ton Tin the sense in which that word is
used in our political discussions in any
form; because it is not in harmony with
the genius or spirit of the Republican
system of government. The feudal SyS-
tenn of government was founded upon
the protective spirit, and protection, as
it exists in this country, is the feudal
system modified. am opposed to it be-
cause it reduces citizens to the cOndi-
ton of trampS on the one hand, and pro-
notes others to the position of million
aires on the other hand, through the
operation of law. am opposed to it be-
cause it is in direct antagOnism to the
democratic doctrine of fair play and
equal rights. am opposed to it because
the two conditions OF great wealth and
extreme poverty. which is the inevitable
result of the protective policy, are both
unfavOrable to the highest human
development. Free trade is demanded
just as soon as 1t can be reached with
out disturbing the running machinery
of the government. | would repeal the
inland revenue system because it is not
equitable taxation, and because the
necessary requirements of the law, to-
gether with the necessary power with
which internal revenue officers are
clothed-in order to collect the revenue
are too inquisitorial to be consistent
with the rights of freemen.
~
M. T. Flynn, Litchfield, Mer-
chant am in favor of tariff reform.
III
f.. w. Durant, Saltwater, Lum-
berman-While opposing protection, l
do not think that free trade is demanded
now. | would continue the internal
revenue, and eliminate from the tariff
all protective elements. favor reve-
hue tariff.
I Robert Patterson, Cologne, Farm
er-I believe that every man in the
West should oppose protection, demand
free trade and the repeal of internal
revenue except on whisky, l believe
that all in this town feel the same way,
without regard to party lines.
Il. N. Dodge, Claremont, Farmer
i do not favor a general protection,
because | believe the day has passed
which made Unnecessary. believe that
just and reasonable free trade is de-
have right to demand, relief from an
unnecessary burden of taxation which
present protection imposes. | would re-
tain the internal revenue tax on whisky
and beer and reduce it on tobacco. |
would reduce the tariff to point COM
menSurate with the just and economical
requirements OF the government.
TT. Hudson, Duluth, lawyer
oppose protection because its effect is to |
take from the many under the guise of |
law to enrich the few. and thus tends to |
an unequal distribution of wealth. This |
is demonstrated by the fact that wealth, |
per cdpltd, III OuI agricultural States. |
which have most of the unprotected in |
dustries, has increased very slowly dur
ing the last twenty years of protection,
and has remained more equally distrib-
uted among the citizens of those states, |
while in the mining and manufacturing |
states the wealth per capita has in-
creased rapily, but has passed INTO the |
hands of a few who have grown rich !
while the large proportion OF the clti- /
zens OF these states are without |
Protection hampers and |
cuts off our commercial in |
tereourse with other countries. |