San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1888-06-05
A REPUBLICAN PRoTECTIONIST.
The Doctrine of Protection Eluci-
dated-A Criticism upon Hon.
Evans Letter.


SAN ANTONIO, June 4. 1888.
To the Hon. A. J. Evans, Republican Can.
didate for Presidential Elector:
DEAR SR:-It may seem presumptions
in one who lie, and who desires to be,
simply q voter In the republican ranks,
to In any manner criticize letter OF In
struction or suggestion. If you would
rather have it so called, from one OF so
great prominence, justly earned though
it be. 40 yourself, to the delegates to the
Republican National Convention SO soon
to convene, but you know republicans
always claim the privilege of thinking
for themselves.
With the exception of two points in
your letter to the Hon. E. FL. Terrell
and the other delegates. as published in
the LIGHT Of June I'd, fully endorse the
whole letter, but upon these two points
let us reason together little.
LIST. You say: "ProtectiOn for the sake
of protection, must find no support or
oountenance In your platform; and II 30
you invite defeat, etc."
Il goes without Questiun that our pre-
sent revenue 10 greater than need be,
hence there should be reduction.
Tho tariff is now laid 90 as to protect
. very great variety Of manufacturers
and industries, but 1t 10 claimed with
more or less of truth by our common
of the people are burdened thereby.
The question then to be solved is, how
to reduce the revenue, thereby tighten
ing the burdens Of the masses, and at
the same time protect our manufactO-
ries and industries.
To remove the tariff would Of course
reduce the revenue, but 1t is by no
means clear that it would furnish the
masses with cheaper goods, that is, after
the first rush of foreign articles with
which our country would be flooded, for
the purpose Of destroying our manufao-
tories.
ton whether goods would not,
as soon as manufactures had
been effectually stamped out and de-
stroyed, be even higher than before the
tariff was removed, and the masses
would, after . little temporary relief,
find themselves worse off than before;
the government would have been very
much the loser; the home factories de-
molished, and the result would be that
the dollar would be much harder to
earn here, and when spent would 60 in
to the pocket of the foreign manufac-
turer instead of the American, as it now
does.
To slightly reduce the tariff all round.
would be but a slight advantage to the
masses, while it would be disastrous to
the American manufacturer, and
would force him to scale down his
prices for labor oorrespondingly, as there
would be no occasion for reduction In
the prices of material, and besides the
revenue would be increased instead of
diminished.
Toreduoe the tariff very materially,
sufficient for instance to reduc the rev.
enue, would of course work out the came
effect az the total abolition OF the tariff
except that there would still remain
some revenue. These 1t seems to me
are the legitimate results Of tariff "to
support the government, etc." as you
put IL, or as the democratic conundrum
Of 1884 had it: Tariff for revenue only"
with Incidental protection thrown in.
The two ideas are the same, only differ
emily worded.
1t seems to me that the true policy for
the republicans to pursue Is to place the
tariff on manufactures from home pro-
ducts sufficiently high to enable the
manufacturer to pay good prices for his
labor and material, and II necessary,
protect by tariff the home products.
Let the tariff be for the sake of pretec
ton, pure and simple.
But what Of the revenue Take away
the tariff on articles manufactured from
the products of other countries. For
further reduction, take the tax from to-
bacoo and reduce I or =! the tax on
spirits.
II there still be surplus, inaugurate
free postage; build q navy that will en-
able an American admiral to look at a
foreigner without blushiDg; subsidiZe,
like England, several lines Of steamships
to foreign countries, but do not use the
revenues Of our country to subsidiZe
foreign factories with, as the democrats
under Clevelsnd's whip, propose to do.
I'd. Allow me to criticize that part OF
your letter as to choice of nominees.
You say among others, that the voices
of Virginia, West Virginia, North Caro-
lima and Tennessee should be needed.
Why should they judge? You know
81 well as do that no electoral vote
from southern state will be counted
for the republican nominee, no matter
how the voters in the state cast their
ballots.
In nv opinion this state of affairs will
last until at least a respectable minority
of the colored vote 10 democratic. When
the colored vote ceases to be solidly re-
publican then the south will cease to be
solidly democratic and not till then.
You also state that the voices OF In
diana, New Jersey, Connecticut. New
York, California, Nevada and Oregon
should be. needed, and in the
the next breath, your advices to
nominate w. Q. Gresham, of Indiana.
NTH Q6vinn