Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1890-10-08

Il
imported a tax so heavy as to protect
those which are produced at home.
Here, and here only. the revenue and
the protection may both be secured.
But this is the single species of protec-
ton To which none of the arguments in
favor of protection, as a matter of policy,
can be made TO apply. In this case
there can be no question that the amount
of the tax is added to the price of the
article.
have not forgotten the famous
general welfare" clause. 1t reads:
The Congress shall have power to pro-
vide for the common defense and gen
eral welfare of the United States" and
a law that all bachelors should, for the
general welfare of the United States,
straightway marry, would be as clearly
within its terms as law imposing a
protective tariff. 1t does not mean that
the Congress may do anything it pleases
under pretense of providing for the gen
cral good.
VI, FIAT JUSrIrIA.
Ny protcctioniSt friend tells me that
the amount of the tax Is not added TO
the price OF the article; that protection
enables the manufacturer to produce so
chcaply that the taxed article is really
sold in this country cheaper than if the
tax were removed. Iadmit the truth of
the statement. Being, as | said, plain
man, with much to do and no leisure
for personal investigation, cannot do
else. Moreover, if resort to books, !
find all the best authorities on the sub
ject contradicted by others which are
as good or better. But is my friend
speaking of the universal rule, or OF the
occasional exception? Is it the purpose
of protection to make prices higher, or
TO make them lower? Or is its purpose
one thing, and its result another? If its
purpose DC to make prices higher, and
It's result to make them lower, it is no
better than the engineer "hoiSt wit h
his own petard.'
But the manufacturer wants prOtec-
ton because without il he will be unable
to pay his wOrkmen high wages
Why will he not be able? Because
without the tariff the prices which he
would obtain for his product would go
down. He would receive so little for his
goods that he could not afford to pay the
high wages which he now pays. II,
Notwithstanding the tariff, the prices of
the product are to 90 down TO this lower
level, the inability TO pay the high
prices for labor must follow. As he
continues to pay what he deems high
prices for labor, we may safely assume,
| think, that the prices OF his product
have not gone down to the point to
which he apprehendS they would go if
the tariff were removed. That is TO say,
the tariff adds something to the price
which the consumer pays do not say
the whole amount of the tax, but some
thing.
Is this just? To be just, taxation
should be uniform. TO be just, also,
the tax must be levied for the use of the
public. To take private property for
private use, to take from one person in
order to give to another, cannot be JUS
titled. First, the uniformity Of taxation
is disturbed. If the producer and the
consumer own properties Of equal value
they should pay equal amounts in taxes.
OStenSibly they do so. But apart
from what both pay to the
tax collector, the difference
between the tariff price and the no.
tariff price of the articles he consumes
lis taken from the consumer through
taxation, and given to the producer. To
this extent the consumers burden is ag-
gravated and the producers allcyiatcd.
Second, this is done not to supply the
governmental treasury, but to put into
private pockets the amount whereby
the tariff enhances the price. BY force
of its terms. protective tariff means Il
tariff which will keep out the foreign
product. If the foreign product is kept
out. the government derives no revenue
from it. The curious anomaly is pre-
Scnted Of a tax which, while it imposes
burden upon the people, produces
nothing for the government. The pub
licans. who ran in couples with the sin
nerS, at least kept up the appearance OF
gathering taxes for the public benefit
The protectionistS who are frequently
producers. appropriate to themselves
the only product Of the tariff, the excess
i'm price which the consumer pays.
VII. EtAI COELIM.
VIII the heavens fall if the protective
tariff be abolished? If we had no tariff
at all, and suddenly and without warn
ing protective tariff were imposed
upon great numbers Of articles, an i'm
menSc commercial disturbance would
follow. Manufacturers who had been
using free materials would find their
business thrown into confusion and per
hapS ruined before they could adjust II
to the altered conditions. Like results.
for precisely similar reasons, would FOL
low the sudden abolition OF the present
protective tariff. The question. there
fore. which policy should ultimately bc
adopted. has nothing to do with the
question whether any sudden and eN-
tensive change would produce disturb
ance and distress. The method OF IN
PRODUCING a change will be a temporary
eXpedient, not worthy to determine or
control the general policy Of the
country.
Let usopaSS that. and suppose the
change to have been judiciouSly brought
about. What then is TO determine
whether widespread ruin is TO accom-
pany free trade? We can produce a
sufficient number and variety of articles
TO keep all of us busy, and produce them
as cheaply as any other people. We
can do this Notwithstanding the higher
price which, because Of its scarcity, we
must pay for labor. If this be true, the
difficulty is solved. for we can then com
pete successfully in all markets, at
home and abroad. You will observe
that my proposition is modest one. |
do not say that we can produce more
cheaply. but only as cheaply. | do not
say that we can produce all the articles
we now produce. but only sufficient
number of articles TO keep our people
busy. If we can produce as cheaply as
others. we ought to be satisfied, for the
advantage of freightS will give us CON
troll of the home market, and we will be
on an equal footing with our competi-
tors in the markets of nOn-producing
countries. If the production of some
articles which we now produce must be
abandoned. it will only be because
others, for the production of which we
are better adapted, will take their
places.
But may not the proposition be
broadened? | have been taught to be-
licve that we excel all other countries in
natural advantages. In the production,
then of those articles for which nature
has equipped us, why should we not eX-
eel Others and produce them more cheap
ly? And why should we abandon the
production of any of the articles which
we now produce? Has not the selection
been already judiciously made? Are
we not now at work upon the produc-
tom of thnsn thinrs for which orr nat