Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1889-03-01
The senate Tariff Bill,

tcctive tariff III the late election was 80
extreme as TO rebel old Wigs and Repub-
lcans like ex.secrciNry McCulloch and
Judge Dickson IN Ohio and Chancellor
Pieraon In New York. 1he result of the
election has confirmed this extreme len
dency, and the party shibboleth is con-
formed 10 ii. Thia ~ the natural course
of party spirit, aud every pnrty leader or
ambitious partisan ia driven along resist
lcstly by the accelerated impulse. Under
such circumstances moderation and regard
for wise tradiiiUne disappear. Mirabeau
aud the Gironde are supcrseded und over
whelned by the bloody triumvirrte aud
the terror. The latter Tariff Doctors
would have amazed Henry Clay, aud
many OF them their earlier selveR. The
Senate has passed its revision of duties
ostensbly to diminish the surplus and TO
reduce the tariff. But in the face Of an
enormous surplus the duties upon some
| OF the most important raw materials are
increased, and taxes are laid upon uni
veisal necessities. The fundamental prin-
ciple Of protective tariff, as hitherto
understood, is the fostering of domestic
industry TO point at which IL can fairly
compete with foreign industry of the same
kind. The theory is that the protective
duty, while excluding the foreign product,
will so develope competition OF domestic
production as to keep the price TO the
consumer as low as 1t would be in free
market, while the duties to raise the neces.
sary public revenue could be 30 adjusted
as 10 provide the desirable protection.
This was substantially the American
system. But that il is the principle of
the present bill will not be asserted. The
bill Is not a scheme in which the consid-
Grafton that governs every detail and rate
Of duty is an equitable adjustment of the
tax so as TO prevent burdening the con.
sumer. The duty on sugar, for instance,
is reduced one-hali, which it is alleged
will save twenty-five millions of dollars
10 the consumer after bounty OF one cent
per pound is paid TO the producer. But
that fact does not explain why, with an
enormous surplus, every other producer
this one interest. The whole tariff ques-
iion Is one which peculiarly interests the
farmers, and the proposed sugar bounty
is an ineligible illustration of the work
Ing OF q system which they find very
mysterious, but which they are assured is
most beneficial 10 them, and which in
many parts of the country they warmly
support. But il one agricultural product
Is TO be protected by bounty, why not
others2 This is question which they
are sure TO ask. There is duty on
wheat, but there is no protection, because
there is no competition: and, moreover,
the domestic price OF wheat 10 fixed, not
by the home market, but by the price OF
the exported surplus, which is unprotected.
Thus the farmer Is compelled TO sell his
wheat raised by higher-priced labor at
prices fixed by markets in which wheat
raised by the cheapest labor completes.
This is the burden OF petition presented
TO Congress by Mr.. Thomas, of OHIO
who asks for bounty on wheat. The
argument which ia urged upon the farmer
by the advocates OF a sugar bounty and OF
all the protected industries is that they
give hIm a home market which otherwise
he would not have. The intelligent far
mer replies that he is sure of the general
home market against all competition
and that the protected industries hardly
furnish home market for FIVE per cent.
of his wheat. Meanwhile for the pro-
ducts Of those industries lie pays annually
price vastly increased by the protection.
Is this slate of things remedied by the
Senate bill ? Is 1t adapted to tighten OF
to increase the burdens of the consumer
Is it designed to distribute an indirect
tax as reasonably aud equitably as pos
sible, and to adjust the duty to raise the
price only 10 the point Of differance in
the cost of labor with the consequent do
mestic competition 10 which we alluded
II raises the duty on tin plate. But this
is merely an increase of price 10 the con-
sumer, because there is no tin plate made
in this country, and consequently nc
domestic competition. The plea for thi'
increase is that somebody may undertake
the manufacture if the duty should max,
il rcmuneralive. But the same somebod,
will be the judge of the remuneration
and il lie THINKS that it is not sufiicen
he will ask for an increase of the duty
aud lie will get il. There are other con
, sdrralions Of very seriOns nature il
connection with the construction Of
. tariff which Schuz plainly pointed on
1 in his recent speech at the Commonwealth
issue, and enormous sums Of money ar
required IN an election, and great proiccte
interests supply the money, and by ih
aid Of the money the election is carried
and those interests are favored by leglsl,
,ion, there is u natural suspicion tha
snch legislation is not equitable, aud lhs
LAWS are Gisde IN the interest, not al Ill
C people, INT L: II mOneyeh class. The de-
% bates IN the Senaie upon the bill in
I, passed are virtually unknown To III
country. for there are few readers # Il
i Congressional Re ord But the tariff din
II c,iTsuns in the press and in conversation
il like those lately upon the stump, are vel
IL enligh,ening, and we see no evidence tbs
the tendency toward the exIraordinul
= doctrine Of The Republican platform
y Chicago becomes stronger in the cOuntr
ie -Hmuer's I'cckia.