Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1890-07-09
Mr.. Blaine as a Tariff Reformer.

Mr.. Blaine has taken decided grounds,
says the Leesburg Washmgtonian, in favor
of removing all duties from South American
| imports where those countries will grant us
the same privilege. If such a course, with
those countries, will promote the trade and
general welfare Of The country, why would
not the application of such policy to
other countries give us still wider ad-
vantages? 1t would do it, but it would con-
flict with the private interests of favored
class, which has grown immensely rich
under government aid, and whose financial
power rules the government on that liae.-
They will not sanction it. Hence the
country must bear the loss and pay the
taxations to support their policy. The
Springfield Republican has the following
excellent article on this question =
"Mr. B!a:ne puts the reason for our
failure to obtain mure trade from the Sou sh
American states in the right place. The
trouble, he thinks, is chiefly with the tariff
systems of all parties, the United States as
we'll as the others. True, he thinks better
facilities for transportation and a more
satisfactory banking and exchange system
would be valuable aids to an increase in
our trade with these states, but they would
not be sufficient. 1t is also true that under
our tariff law 81 per cent of the products of
these states come in free of duty now, but
this is not enough to suit Mr.. Blaine, he
wants them all to come in free. This is the
panaeca that he offers, absolute free trade
with Spanish America. In the course of
the letter he quietly upsets favorite pro-
tectionist argument and advances an argu-
ment in favor of free raw materials. He
tells the president that in the class of mer-
chandise which these South American
States buy our merchants and manufacture
ers can successfully compete with their
European rivals. 1t is, therefore, not the
pauper labor Of Europe which keeps our
products out of market. We need not, in
his opinion cheaper the cost of labor SO as
to cheaper the cost of production in order
to be able to meet the foreign manufacturer
in his chosen field. This we all know is
true, but it has not been until now con-
sidered good protectionist doctrine. The
accepted argument has been that the tariff
was needed here because our labor was so
much more expensive than foreign labor.-
But now comes Mr.. Blaine and says this is
a mistake, foreign pauper labor is no
cheaper than American labor. He further
advises Ga rebate of duties upon imported
raw materials used i'll the manufacture of
goods for export Which is the same as
saying that a duty on raw materials in
creases the cost of our manufactured articles
and puts our merchants at disadvantage
in the markets in question. This also is
good tariff reform doctrine. One Grover
Cleveland said the same thing in a some
what famous message to Congress few
years ago. For saying it he was roundly
abused and called free trader. Mr..
Blaine therefore knows what to expect
But having gone SO far in his advocacy of
free raw materials, why didn't Mr.. Blaine
go farther and advocate them for all of us?
Why should the people of the United States
be Disseminated against in this way? If
free raw materials will make goods cheaper
for export, free raw materials would make
the same goods cheaper for home consump-
tion and certainly we, the citizens of this
free and enlightened land, are as we'll en-
titled to cheap goods as our neighbors of
South America Taken altogether Mr.
Blaine makes a pretty good free trade
argument. And so far as it goes, reciprocity
IS free trade, and nothing else. By the
way, while he was about it, why didn't he
say something about Canada and Mexico2"