Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-11-05
TARIFF REFORM NOT FREE TRADE.


 l It is more than probable that the cam paign which is now over has effectually disposed of the free trade scare so far as the odium of foisting free trade on this country attaches to the democratic party and its policy. It has been made very plain to those whom partisan prejudice has not blinded against conviction that tariff reform does not mean free trade. If the policy of the democratic party as embodied in the Mills bill were adopted, the United States would still have much protection as any of the highly protected countries of Europe enjoy. Indeed, in so far as the average rate of protection is concerned, the Mills bill would leave nearly or quite as much as would the measure reported by the republican senators.
 The main and underlying principle of the Mills bill and the democratic policy of tariff reform is that, in order to compete successfully with the manufactured pro- ducts of other nations, it is necessary that the people of this country should have the raw materials that are to be turned into finished products by their work at the | lowest possible price. This is theory that has been embodied in the legislation of the protectionist countries of Europe. They have recognized that, while the working classes should be protected in so far as the finished products of their work are concerned, the highest advaptag would inure to them bya providing at the lowest cost the materials on which their labor was te be expended. The more raw materials brought into the country the better for the workers, for it would create greater demand for their services iE shape The belief of the European pro tectionists was that to place a heavy tax on raw materials was to handicap domestic production at the start, and thus materially lessen the benefits of protection on the finished commodities. This has been the idea of Bismarck and his associate pro tectionists ill Germany, and ofthe protec- tionists in France, Italy and Austria
 Now, the democratic party proposes to place the tariff system of this country on a
 
 the protected countries of Europe. And in so far as it has exemplifed this policy in the Mills bill it did it by providing, in a number of instances, for free raw materials, with protection on finished articles which in some cases is propcrtiorately higher than that which already exists so that, instead of losing trade or being driven out of the home market there is abundant reason to believe that the American manufacturer will be better able to hold this market and compete with all coners. It is certainly reasonable to presume that, with free raw wool, we would not be forced to import, as we did last year, $45, ,000, 900 worth of wooden goods. The cry that the Mills bill and the democratic policy is free trade either in itself or in the direction it takes is disinge2uous and exaggerated. If it is free trade, or, as General Harri son says, Ca step in the direction of free trade" it's further extension will depend altogether on the results of first applications. If, as a result of the proposed change, the business of the country should improve, if the con- dition of the wage earners should be bet tered, if we should find ourselves better able to meet and owe rcome foreign compe- tition, then we may expect that the people will ask for further extension along the line of tariff reduction. But to assume defanthly and doggedly. without precedent or experience or convincing proof, that the reduction now proposed by the demo- | cratic party is free trade and is hurtful to the industrial and business interests of the country is neither ingenious nor just.
 Tariff reform is not free trade, nor can it be distorted into such. The democratic policy is freer, not free trade.