The Globe-republican. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1889-1910, 1890-10-08
THE NEED OF PROTECTION.

How Long Shall Protective Duties Lsst9-
Enrlish Free Trade-Manuf scturing ana
Agricultural Interests Inseparabiy Bound
Together.
The Free Trader asks: How long
shall protective duties last? II they
were evils to be put aside. or burdens 10
be put off as soon as possible, instead Oh
benefits to be maintained so long as
necessary. A protective tariff discrlml-
mates in favor of the people OF the couh-
try where it is framed. while tariff 1or
revenue only discriminates against them
and in favor Of foreigners. The latter
is premium or discrimination in favor
of foreign manufacturers and farmers
and better paid workmen. Protection
does not establish monopoly, but breaks
down foreign monopoly by encouraging
home competition. We have already
made our labor more productive, elevat-
ed its charact ter and made the workman's
| fe larger and richer than any other
nation in the world All the people
in Europe feel and know this to
be the fact; and what is the practical
result? The total immigration from
according to the Statistical Abstract
of the United States. shows 161. 14S inn
migrantsAwho came here to better their
condition The immigration from Ger
many was 1906 S65; Austria, 90, $50; Hun
gary, Is, $50; Sweden. 40, S36: Norway,
L. 200; Italy, 1852; Russia in Europe.
oS, 9t4; Poland, 6, 1913; France. 1904;
Switzerland, 5,214; Belgium, 2,55S; Dem
mark, s, 524 Total Europe mot United
Klngdom). including many other coun-
tries whose immigration we do not here
give, $40, 7O5. Why do these people
come here? Because they expect amel-
ioration of their estate. Because they
expect to be, and know that they viii
be, better fed, better clad, better shell
tered with more books, newspapers and
public libraries. and better common
schools for their children. Our savings
banks are principally patronized by our
working population. What do they
show? That in 1867, the amount of
deposits in the savings banks of the
United States were 81, 235, PAT, 81; that
the number of depositors was 3, AIS. OILS,
with an average to each depositOr of
S361.
Now, how about British free trade?
Is it free trade? For centuries England
was rigidly protective. Forty years ago
she adopted an inconsistent and decep-
tive approach toward theory which no
civilized nation ever carried ont in prac-
tice: and she now says to America adopt
free trade, as we have. to improve your
material prosperity. That prosperity
would result, we don't doubt, but it
would be British and not American
prosperity, as they would get the mo-
nopOiy of our markets and break down
our manufactures. In 1912 the noted
tariff of Sir Robert Peel was enacted.
How much free trade was there about
it? Mr. Gladstone. Chancellor of the
English Exchequer, said of it: 1T was
an attempt to make a general APP
proach to the following rules: First the
removal of prohibitions; secondly, the
reduction of duties on manufactured
articles and protective duties generally
to an average of twenty per cent, ad
valorem; thirdly, on partially. manu-
featured articles to rates not exceeding
y,
rails to rates not over five per cent"
Peel, himself, said: 81 do not abolish
all protective duties. On the contrary
the amended tariff maintains many
duties that are purely protective. as
distinguished from revenue duties"
The tariffs of 1915 and 1916 were similar
in their general tenor. but of less con-
sequence; carefully protective when
necessary. reduced where no home in
terest was hurt thereby, reduced indeed
sometimes to benefit home interests by
giving raw material cheaper to the
manufacturer. In 1S49 there was vir-
tual repeal of the corn laws, placing the
duty on grain at a shilling quarter,
which was abolished in 1863
This repeal took place at time when
England could not feed her own people,
and it was a necessity to reduce the
price of breadstuff, at home, to stop
English manufacturers from emigrating
to the European continent and starting
their business where food was cheaper
1t was an important step in the interest
of the British manufacturers, while the
fact that benefit to the working class
es. which has not been realized, was eX-
pected from it cast deceptive light
around the whole free trade movement
In 1874 the sugar duties were abolished,
greatly to the injury of the sugar REIN
ers. and it is now claimed that these
were the last protective duties and that
England has q free trade tariff with du
ties for revenue only. The duty on
corn was repealed because they expected
that England could buy cheaper food.
The duties on manufactured goods were
repealed because England expected to
sell cheaper than any other country.
England, in 1879. levied duties on fifty
three articles in their official
list, and so Disseminated as
to protect their home manufactures On
over forty per cent of the total dutiable
imports of Great Britain, their pretend
ed free trade tariff so discriminates
between manufactured and raw materi-
ais, by duties from twenty-five to forty
five per cent higher on the first than on
the last as to give effective protection
to her own manufactures. How abo ut