The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-10-14
PLAIN TALKS FOR PLAIN PEG.
PLE--THE TARIFF.
From a Reformer's Standpoint.
OLD FOGY.
No

the tariff who was neither a partisan
or in the interest of a manufacturer (
If not, the views presented In this
series of articles may differ from the
old ~stereotyped discussions.
We are told in the partisan press
that the Alliance brands the tariff as
a side issue. We ought, then, show
why we so consider it. The old parties
will try to make the tariff an issue,
and it is for the purpose of giving
our people the truth as we understand
it, that | have been induced to discuss
this old hobby.
So far the old shibbolelh "free
trade and prohibitory tariff" has
aroused but little enthusiasm. The
lack of interest exhibited oy the PEG,
pie arises. first, from the fact that the
people have learned that no new ideas
or principles have been developed in
reference to the tariff from the first
to the fifty first Congress. Second,
the people have learned that the plu,
tocrats of both parties are perfectly
happy when the people r. quarreling
over the rate per cent. Third, that
the people have learned that a high
or low tariff is not the cause of good
times or hard times.
There was a time when honest
Democrats and honest Republicans
believed implicit y all that was said
of the opposite party by their party
papers. There was a time when
honest Republicans really believed
that the Democratic party was in favor
of "free trade"
To-day the rank and file Of the Re-
publican party have learned that the
Single Tax party is the only free trade
party in this country, and that Henry
George and his followers desire all
taxes (~tariffs) abolished and in lieu
thereof a tax on real property and on
nothing else.
The plain people of u country
know that the Democratic party was
in control of both branches Of Con
grss for years, and that the President
of the United States was Of the same
political faith, and yet while the Dem
ocratlc party was controlled by the
States using slave labor, they did not
pass free trade laws. They could
have done so if they wished. The
plain people have, by such false
charges, lost faith in politicians state
ments.
On the other hand Democratic
speakers have charged that the tariff
was Ubiquitous and that "Ehe Re-
publican party originated tariff legis
Iation." The plain people have
learned that the doctrine of "protec-
ton to American industries " is as
old as our government. When Con
gress first met, even before Washing.
ton was inaugurated, the members OF
Congress began formulating a tariff
bill to protect American indusjries-to
make US independent of the mother
country. The first bill passed by the
American Congress was one prescrib,
ing forms of oaths. The second was
a tariff bill. So great was their
haste to pass the second Declaration
of independence" that the tariff bill
enacted by our first Congress became
a law sixty days before the law in
reference to the Treasury Department
was passed, into which the receipts
from the tariff were to be turned.
The first law made the average tariff
tax u per cent. and only eight articles.
To day our tariff averages All per
cent. and on about ZOO articles.
If these facts do not prove that pro-
lection to American industries was
inaugurated a half century before the
party which has been denounced as
it's author had an existence, then l do
not know what evidence is.
Another curious phase Of the tariff
question is tariff for revenue only"
as the Democratic party expressed it,
or as we express it. Revenue linn
tied to the necessary expenses of the
government economically admins
tered" 1t has been said "the higher
the tariff, the less the revenue; the
lower the tariff, the greater the reve.
nue."
, To day we have tariff so high on
some articles that they cannot be i'm
ported proftably. Reduce the tariff
on iron and steel one,half, and while
the revenue from each ton is dimin-
ished, our whole consumption would
be taxed, and this would amount to
far more than now. If we conclude
that our government could be run
economic ally 80 l 8 per cent. cheaper
than now and leave no money in the
vaults, but have all circulate freely,
we would have to raise the tariff in.
stead of lowering it. I am not now
discussing which is the correct idea,
but endeavOring to show the inconsis-
tencies in the old positions as against
new issues. We state the new issue
in Art. 5, St. Louis demands: " Equal
rights to all and special privileges to
mona y and &C wo demand that tavo+iOp