New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-09-30
pRoTECTIVE AND OTHER DUTIES.

Three Republican Representatives dd not
like the sugar schedule Of the Tariff bill, and
therefore voted against the measure. inns
same consideration influenced Senator Pad
dock. The only difference between Repub'
leans thus appears to have been respecting
those duties which are for revenue only, While
a. to the protective duties which form the
great body and meet the main purpose OF the
Tariff bill, all were able to agree.
This is a point of some consequence. because
it has constantly been represented that con-
iictng interests would make it impossible TO
frame Q consistent protective tariff. The ad-
yocates of duties on raw sugar, it is true, set
I'D the plea that these duties arc proper for
protection But tho question is wholly one OF
fact A protective duty is one which has
certain actual effect, and after many years
trial it has been proved that the production OF
sugar in this country is not in fact protected
or encouraged by duties of nearly 100 per cent
on imports The substitution of bountics which
have succeeded in other countries, therefore
has reason on its side. But it is-worth while
to remember that the prolonged and somewhat
heated controversy between wool-growers and
wool manufacturers was settled to the satlsfac'
ton of both by an adjustment which both pro-
nounced equitable. Other difficulties about
protective duties were in like manner over.
come, because the ruling purpose itself marked
out the limits of equitable adjustment. Inc
revenue duties caused great difficulty and some
danger; the protective duties did not.
But it will be said that the duty on binding
Irvine was an obstacle to success. This, again.
was entirely because Of the existence in that
manufacture of trust which is in It's very
nature conspiracy to defeat the tariff and de-
priye the people Of its benefits. Absolutely
the only cause of strong feeling and Obstinate
persistence on this matter was this conspiracy
against Protection, and not the protective dufy
itself. Men did not agree and for some time
to come probably will not. As to the best mode
of dealing with these combinations against the
public welfare. But they are not parts OF tho
protective system, nor legitimate results Of it.
nor more frequently found in the United States
than in frec.trade countries, nor are they III
reality aided BY Protection, hut only menaced
with speedy destruction. The surcst way to
overthrow such conspiracy, many believe with
much experience On their side, is ~ stimulate
to the utmost the development OF home COM
petition. The removal of duty would break
down and destroy the weaker competitors pre-
sumably not within trust, but whether in any
particular case it would destroy the combina-
ton or not is Often exceedingly doubtful. If
not. it would only increase its duration and its
power for harm.
The work accomplished by Protection. where
it has been measurably effective, vindicates the
policy completely. Ample experience. results
of incalculable value to the public, in such
cases argue for the system with power that is
irresistible. But where there is no Protection
to be maintained, or the attempt to protect has
failed, or the purpose has been defeated by
hostile combinations there an adjustment OF
duties becomes q matter Of gucsswork, or an
arbitrary exercise OF choice, which gives rise
to endless controversy.