Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-01-05
ON THE ISSUE OF 50.
Continued from First Pnoe

1
them or enticing smuggling. Taxes
should be assessed upon those best able
to pay. This was the policy OF the
present tariff, and it had operated even
better than had been hoped. These
duties had imposed chiefly the burden OF
taxation upon articles of voiun-
tary luxury, aud had still IN
cited American srtists and mechanics
to compete in those branches of industry
with the skilled artists of Europe and
Asia. In this way remarkable progress
had been made IN those expensive pro-
auctions, and porcelain tableware, orna-
ments, clothing and furniture and the
multitudes of other articles of use and
| luxury, works Of American mechanics,
had been brought within the means Of the
I great masses Of the American people. TO
reduce the duty On these foreign luxuries
would be to transmit the burden Of tsx.-
tion from those VINO bore it willingly to
the
! SHOULDERS OF THE PEOPLE.
Il the object were to reduce the surplus
revenue what better mode could be sug-
gested than to repeal one-half the duty
on sugar, and thus directly relieve the
people from $2S 100000 taxes on an ar
ticle OF general use and now bearing q
tax Of 50 per cent. Efforts to produce
| sugar in the United States in Quantities
at Gil approaching the demand had failed,
though protected by the highest tariff
rates. Still in view OF the hopeful pros
pect OF producing sugar from beets and
sorghum cane as well as from sugar
cane he would not cripple that industry
| by reducing the protective duties on
l hvJ mi bn - Il
sugar bounty equal to the reduction OF
duty on the imported article. The great
body OF crude articles imported which
entered into the domestic industry to the
value of $l06, 900, 900 were now free OF
duty. Duties averaging 80 per cent
were now levied upon imported articles
that competed directly with the develop
ment Of
AMERICAN PRODUCTS
valued at SIS, 500. 600, and which yielded
revenue of $4,000, 900. The chief OF
them were agricultural products, wool,
fax, hemp and other textile grasses, hog
bristles and seeds, valued st S35, 600, 900
and yielding q revenue OF $40, 10000 or
less than 80 per cent. The remainder
was chiefly metals in ore or pigs, coal and
marble OF the value of $500. 900 and
yielding $9,250.000 These imports
come into direct competition
with the productions of nesrly 10000, 900
American farmers and of hundre:s of
thousands Of laboring men. This mod
crate protection given to labor and capt.
tai employed in mining end agricultural |
industries was the favorite point of as
sault by the President and all free trad
ers upon the protective policy. No reason
could be given why wool should be made
free and WOODEN goods should |
be protected. II there must be
cheap wool there must be cheap
wcolsrs, and If the labor of the farmer
in producing wool was not protected
against undue competition with Australia
or Baunos AYres then that of the cloth
maker
SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED
sgainst competition with the looms Of
Manchester and Lyons. The farmers
performed IS valuable labor as the
and the rights of every producer
should have equal and Just consideration
without fear or favor. Tae President had
selected wool as an article not
to be protected. SO
His whole argument rested on the ale
CATION that the price Of wool was in
creased to the .Xtent of the duty, that put
for the duty the merchant could buy wool
cheaper In. South America and Australia
This argument YVES fallacious, because
the destruction Of the wool Industry in
the United States would at once advance
the price OF wool in foreign markets.
But even If the argument were true,
1t would apply as well to all domestic
productions and
TO ALL MANUFACTURERS.
Wool was the completed article of the
Isrmer just as cloth was OF the manufac-
turer aud as coat was OF the tailor, and
the obi ection that the duty on wool raised |
The price to the consumer applied as we'll,
Il true, to the duty on cloth aud on every
article on the tariff list. The all-sufticientl
answer was that the duty encouraged
inc production of wool, the manu-.
'ecture OF clothes and of an inf ate
variety of articles produced by American
sbor competing with foreign labor. It
had always seemed to me most narrow
md selfish notion, that made on behalf :
Of iadv.nced industries, that they must
De allowed to purchase their rawmateriAls
in the cheapest markets OF the world.
He regarded the home production OF raw
as even Of
MORE IMPORTANCE THAN MANU- scTUREs.
Il
lectures, Mr.. Sherman said the imports {
not on the free list and not classed by /,
him as luxuries CT raw materials
amounted in value to $2l6,000, 900, and !
paid SS4, 100000. These importations ,
came into direct competition with do ,
nestle manufacturing, which had been
mainly built up by the announcement of
the tariff laws. Scarcely any Of them
had existed in the United States when
he constitution was formed. Since I
then they had fourished OF foundered
oy the changing of the rates of the reve- 8
nue laws. a careful revision of the rates
1ad been made by the tariff commission /,
of 1882. ALI branches OF domestic indus +.
try had become adapted to these rates. 1t
vas this system which was denounced by
he President as vicious and inequitable !
md Illogical. That deHunciation was 4
aimed at the principle of protection. ]
The President assumed that the duty on
imported articles Was added to the price T
If similar articles Of home production, c
out such was not the fact. In the ab- 4
,ence of domestic competition the i'm
porter fixed his own price and added the 4
1uty and freight expenses to the cost, but '
a Il - l