The Londonderry sifter. (South Londonderry, Vt.) 1883-19??, 1888-06-21
A TARIFF INQUIRY.

4". EuttOF' VIII you please INFORM
some of the doubtful readers of the SIF-
TER why it is that you call the tariff re-
former free trader2
Why, if you call the Morrill, bill of 1861
a protection measure, do you call the
Mills bill free trade measure2-The
Morrill, bill placing uniform duty of "a
per cent and the Mills bill placing it at
40 per cent.
Does Germany, France, Italy and Rus
STA have protection? If so, why is it the
wages of England, where there is free
trade are higher than those of Germany
with protection?
Yours, Protectionist.
The above comes to us from a
young man not yet voter and is
commendable so far as he is seeking
the truth, and that not from a parti-
san standpoint. No man should ac-
cept free trade, or an approach to it,
simply because it is endorsed by the
Democratic party; neither should any
one accept protection because of its
advocacy by the Republican party.
The truth needs no party to back it
up. Now in answer to our young
friend we would say that the advo-
Gates of the Mills bill are called free
traders because the bill, as whole
has fearful leaning that way, and
in many particulars is absolutely so.
This latter refers to the free list, or
to the scores of articles classed as raw
material, such as wool, hemp, flax
and nearly all farm products. In the
matter of pig iron it leaves the duty
as at present but lowers it on the
finer articles of it's manufacture, which
would practically make free trade in
one of our leading industries. These
are given only as examples, many
others might be mentioned. Another
reason is that all the arguments used
in support of this bill are such that
the absolute free trader invariably
uses. Every newspaper in England
claims that the Mills bill is tending
towards free trade and that it's pas
sage would greatly benefit that coun-
try. All of its friends, including the
newspapers that support this measure,
have over and over again character
lied protection as robbery. Then
they cannot be protectionists, and
must be free traders, as it does not
seem possible to occupy a middle
ground, for surely no honorable man
would admit that he was in favor of
partial robbery. Henry Waterson,
Geo. Jones, Henry George, James
Russell Lowell and every other free
trader in America is a hearty sup
porter of this bill, and finally Mr.
Mills himself is an avowed free trader
and said in presenting his bill to tn,
house that it was bill in the interes
of free country, free men and fire,
trade.
Our young friend will now begin t,
; see why the Mills bill is differen
A from the Morrill, bill, notwithstand
t ing the average percentage of tn
, former is some what greater than tn
) latter. The Mills percentage is mad
+ up largely by high rates of duty fo
theprotection of his Southern friends
6S per cent on sugar, about 100 o
, rice, &c. Again the Morrill, tart
y bill was enacted especially for th
+ raising of revenue, then needed t
r meet the expences of the war, and
, was adjusted to that end.
! Germany has adopted the protec
tive system, but why her wages ar
lower than that of free trade Englan
we are unable to say, but can sa
e with confidence that it is not on az
count of protection as since she adopt
: ed this policy her exports have il
: creased many of her industries hav
S largely increased, that of linen 80
i per cent, of iron and steel 40 DC
+ cent and wages have gone up-hav
k been increased under protection, how
i ever low they may be. So this a
S gument of the revenue reformer wi
n not hold water.
a France and Italy are partial pr
d lection countries. As to Russia "
l. do not know.