The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1890-06-19
EAUK CENTRE HERALD
- THURSDAY June 10, 1890.
NO CHANGE.


The St. Cloud Times of recent date, in
referring to an article in the HERALD OF
last week says:
"While the lamp holds out to burn the
vilest sinner may return The Mckm-
lev increase of war tar bill is opening the
ewes of many hoary headed high tariff
ties. Here is the Sank Centre HERALD,
a protectionist of protectlonists. Lis
ten to it's tale of woe, the Mckinley bill
being its text, etc.
The Times has a short memory. The
HERALD is not now and never has been
a high protective tariff advocate, but is
now andialways was for low protective
tariff-as different as protection and
free trade, or so-called tariff-forrevenue
only. Two years ago the HERALD
said, commenting on Knute Nelson's
speech IF there be any sounder republi'
can doctrine than that embodied in the
following extract from the speach, the
HERALD never had the satisfaction Of
perusing it:
Coming to the question of the degree
of protection that ought to be given IN a
case where protection is fairly warrant
ed, it seems to me that only so high a
duty should be laid as will fairly cover
the difference in the cost of production
here and abroad, be it in labor, raw ma
terial, or interest on capital. Such a
tariff call low tariff as distinguished
from revenue tariff. Where tariff tax
exceeds in a material degree this meas
ure | term it high tariff. 1t then be-
comes more or less prohibitive, breeds
monopolies, and works injury both to
the consumer and the laboring man.
The republican party could not do bet
ctr than to embody the substance and
spirit of the above extract into its ma
tional platform-for it is the policy which
will commend itself to thinking men and
is bound to prevail in the end. 1t is pro
lection pure and undefled, and as far re
moved from the principle of free-trade OF
tariff for revenue only as the east is from
the west
And asain,-then in reply to the Times
it said:
ITO begin with, the HERALD is not an(
never has been for high protective tariff
but it is in favor of a tariff
that shall merely protect, and nothing
more: on the other hand it has trcQucntll
declared against prohibitive tariff.
Now, If there be any material ditlerenc,
II these views and those expressed las,
week. will the astute editor of the Timos
please point it out:
The HERALD believes in the policy
protection, and for protection only, /
that statement of it seems to empha-
size the position. But it claims the
right to put its own Interpretation uro1
its language so long as the language lie
ultimately admits of such interpretation
The lowest tariff which will afford gen
rine protection sufficient to foster and
secure domestic manufactures atfOrdlng
fir ard legitimate profit, is the measured
protection. Less than that is practical
tree trade; more is either oppressive tax
alton of the many for the few or is pro
hibition. To illustrator THE HERALD be
lieves in af1ording full and adequate pro
lection to the material interests OF Saul
Centre. Suppose it is fonnd by exper-
fence that it will require two policemen
10 do it; to employ five would not ado
to the protection but would be BURDEN
some expense; to employ only one would
invite the lawlcss to free trade.
Now, if the city council proposed to
employ half dozen policemen, could
THE HERALD be accused of opposition
to "protection" because it advocates
two policemen only? Isn't that about
the position of the Times in this mat
ter? 1t advocates the one policeman
idea and then accuses TIE HERALD OF
surrendering it's ideas of protection be-
cause it does not advocate FIVE. The Nc
Kinley bill "protects", but it over-pro-
tects; it wants five policemen to do the
work which two are sufficient for. See?