Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1890-03-06
Tarin Talk at Earmers, InstItutss

Iur1u Tntk NJ Fnrmers lnstitutte
have not thus far noticed the criti-
cisms OF the ARGUS or it's cor dependents
on my letter Of Feb. 18th OH the above
topic. believing that my position needed
no defense; but as the sub ect will not
down. few more words seem called for.
/ have not objected. nor does any
friend of American industries object. 10
fair and full discussion of the tariff on
its merits as an economic question. The
objection lies against the partial. one
sided discussion which assumes before
hand that one side is always and forever
right, and the other side always and for.
ever wrong, and then takes for granted
that tariff is the cause of all the evils af-
fiicting our country. and that one po-
litical party is responsible therefor. Such
a discussion can produce nc good re-
suits either In the discovery Of truth or
the formation OF a correct public senti.
ment. When we remember that the re-
publican party is pledged 10 revise the
tariff In the interests of American indus
tries. of which farming is chief, and that
its representatives are even now en-
gagged In the work. the insinuation
that we republicans airs sitting
the discussion for fear of los
ing votes becomes ST. ridiculous
rs 10 Justify u suspicion of ita authors
sanity. The history Of this debate for
the last four years, to 20 back 40 further.
proves plainly that the republican party
has never evaded il.
After all. the ARGUS and myself are
for once. 10 harmony Ny objection
that this discussion at farmers insti>
tute supported at the public expense
would he transportation OF the peo-
pies money. the ARaUs pronounCes
valid. IL the discussion of this economic
question was conducted solely tor the
public good. the pdblic funds would not
thereby he unemployed. In admitting
the soundness of my objection. The ARGUS
also confesses that the object o. the dis
cussion is not so much To promote the
public welfare as to improve the pros
poets of political party. This is exact
ly why the debate is inexpedienL and i'm
proper.
am not counting any controversy with
the ARGUS or ia contributors One
point only | wish to notice. We are
told tariff is wrong in principle because
II taxes what we consume instead of what
We possess. This is exactly true of a
tariff for revenue only" which was once
a cardinal plank in famous platform.
Such tariff, levied on something we can.
not produce and must have. is charged
up directly to the consumer But n
tariff for protection differs. 1t is levied
on something We can and ought to pro-
duce ourselves. aud ceases to be burden
TO the consumer whenever the production
increases sufficiently to supply the mar.
ket. Competition then interve mes, and
demand regulates prices. So il happens
that many kinds of goods paying a high
rate of duty are produced and sold here
as chesplv as in England. Why then
continue the tariff Simply 10 prevent
foreign manufacturers and spectators
from throwing large quantities of their
goods upon our already well stocked
market, and thus breaking down prices
far below the cost of production. and
! freezing out our manufacturers. The
| foreigner could well afford to sell these
goods regardless of cost or value until
our shops are closed up Then. relieved
| from competition, he would be master of
the situation, and being able easily to
control the lines of ocean commerce,
could dictate prices to US at his own
pleasure. Cheap living is a very tempt
ing bit Of cheese with which to bait the
| trap.
I viii you walk into my parior
said the spider TO the fly"
Joslin. March / J. G. OsB 1RNE
/ The arguments advanced above in ia
vor of protective tariff are so palpably
weak and fsllacious that the ARGUS
deems reply unnecessary. The mOnop>
olists and tariff barons, after reading Mr..
Osborne's effusion. might rigtteously
express desire 10 muzzle him.