Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-09-13
THE LOGIC OF PROTECTION.

Speaking of the tariff bill as it was passed
by the Senate, the Philadelphia Press says:
CLEARLY, there is no logical reason for put
ting binding twine on the free list, and
thereby destroying an important industry"
The Press has lately shown a remarkable
consistency in insisting upon ali changes in
the tariff bill that were favorable to the
trusts, and in opposing those that might
weaken these combinations. But it could
not put its predictions into language more
clearly at variance with the reason of the
case than the sentence just quoted. The
logic of the case is entirely on the side of
just such action as the Senate took on the
binding twine question.
The logic of protection is based entirely
on the encouragement of domestic competi-
ton. Every protective feature in the Nc
Kinley bill has been supported on the
avowed expectation that it would so increase
the competition among domestic producersas as
to eventually lower the prices. While
there may be some dispute as to the degree
or promptness of the protective policy in &C.
eomplishing this result, there is not the
slightest question that the logical
basis of protection is the increase of
domestic competition. When the members
of protected industry therefore combine to
suspend the competition and prevent the re-
duction of prices, as all trusts seek to do,
they try to defeat the object of protection.
When they succeed they not only nullify
the legitimate purpose of protection, but
convert it into an instrument for enrichlng
the members Of monopoly, at the cost of
the masses. In the face of such result the
repeal of a duty, the protective purpose of
which is defeated, is plainly the natural and
logical penalty for such combinations.
The fact is that the repeal of the duty on
binding twine was about the only change,
besides the reciprocity amendment, for
which the Senate can be commended. That
it was not caused by recognition of the
logic of protection is evident from the fact
that other duties protecting trusts and COM
binations were retained, and Senator
Plumb's amendment providing for the sus-
pension of duties when domestic products
are increased in price by trusts, was defeated.
The utter lack of logic on the part of the
Senators from the agricultural States who
forced the removal OF binding twiue
to the free list is shown by the fact that
while that action may save the farmers some
S2O0,0 on binding twine, the increase in
the sugar duties for the benefit of the Sugar
Trust made by the Senate over those fixed
by the House will cost the farmers over
100000 to say nothing of the rest of the
population. Like too many of the tariff
votes the change was simply q successful
movement of single interest in the conflict
of many interests to get what they could out
of the bill.
But the logic of the case calls for some such
action as that proposed by Senator Plumb.
The defense of the protective policy requires
a general notice that where its purpose of
increasing domestic competition is defeated
by trusts and pools, the duty will be re-
moved, and the opposition to its beneficial
effect will be made to reeoil on itself.