The Washington critic. (Washington City, D.C.) 1890-1890, 1890-02-14

long time, and now he knows how It is him
self. The grip has him.
mn. BLAiNE'S TNCONSLSTENCTES.
As the protectionist papers are still dis
cuss ng Mr.. Blaine's reply to Gladstone,
perhaps some of them will explain the fol
lowing facts: Mr.. Blaine implies that the
tariff of 1916 was Il free-trade tariff, but in
reality it was protective tariff, as he him
self states in his Twenty Years In Con
gress.' Again, the tariff of 1924 did not
bring relief to the country. as Mr.. Blaine
implies in his article that it did lie also
admits this fact in his "Twenty Years In
Congress" Again, the tariff of 1928, which
was succeeded by prosperity, was not
protective tariff, as Mr.. Blaine asserts in
his article, but nondescript tariff passed
for partisan purposes. In that year the
jackson men We're divided, part being
protectionis,s and part free traders. The
anti-Jackson men We're al protectionists.
The jackson men accordingly reported a
bill TO raise the tariff in such way that IL
would injure manufacturers; for instance,
the duty on raw materials was raised more
than the duty on manufactured articles
They thought that the anti-Jackson men
would reject this measure and thus make
enemies in the North. But the anti-Jack-
son men saw through the trick and the
tariff was enacted This tariff was de-
nounced by all the Protectionists of the
period, and in 1912, eight years after its re-
peal, Henry Clay, who was an ardent Pro
tectionist, referred to il as ''the tariff OF
1923, which all condemned Mr.. Blaine
states that the low tariff was the principal
cause of the panics of 1887 and 1899 If So
how is it that in 1910 Henry Clay, in a
speech on the state of the country, at
tributes these panics to the despotic policy
OF the Executive, and states, further, that
in his opinion 20 per cent. tariff would be
sufficient protection The tariff was then
lS42, which Mr.. Blaine praises so much,
was per cent lower than the tariff pro-
posed by the Mills bill. Again, Mr.. Blaine
states that we did not recover from the
panic of 1857 until 1861, when the first Nor
rill tariff was passed This is another mis-
statement.
The rabid protectionist Henry G.. Carey,
wrote series of articles on the panic, and
it was evidently entirely over when this
series was fnshed-March,1 1860. Mr. Blaine
further asserts that during the four years
from 1857 to 1861, which Just preceded the
first Morrill, tariff, English manufacturers
held our market. II so, how was it that
our manufactures were nearly twice as
great in 1860 as in 1850, as may be seen in
the ceDsuses of those years? How was it
that during this period our annual exports
of manufactures of cotton were, on the
average, larger than they are at the present
time, AID many Of the cotton manufac-
turers were demanding free trade to aid
them in driving the English from the
markets Of the world? How was it that
the iron manufacturers of New England,
then the chief seat of the iron manufacture
in this country, were also demanding free
trade, as is stated by Henry c. Carey? And.
lastly, how was it that not single manufac-
turer asked Congress for the first Morrill,
TARIFF Br0OLlyjt CiI;-su