The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1890-10-24
Mr. Editor the protective tariff idea

Mr.. Editor, the protective tariff idea
is one that addresses itself entirely to
the selfishness of our people. 1t aims
to stimulate the production of every
article of commerce WITHIN the United
Satates that CAN BE produced at home
for the purpose of furnishing re-
munerative employment to the great
est possible number of laborers within
our borders, and to keep every dollar
of our money possible at home instead
of sending it to other countries to pur-
chase articles of commerce hitherto
purchased abroad incidentally, then,
the same doctrine appeals to the self
lshness of the people within our own
borders, as against those of other sec
tons within the United States. You
object to the Mckinley bill because
you say it does not favor the logger
enoush-yet you propose, as a rem
edy, to elect Mr.. Carroll to congress to
help pass if possible the Mills bill
which protects the sugar producer of
louisiana and yet places the lumber,
coal, iron, and farm products of Puget
Sound upon the free list With the
products of this state Disseminated
against as they are in the Mills bill,
the condition of the logger would be
infinitely more than it ever possibly
could be under the Mckinley bill.
The logic of your proposed remedy for
the ills which you claim loggers will
suffer under the Mckinley bill places
you in position wholly untenable in
this latitude
You say the Mckinley bill admits
saw logs duty free from British Col
umbia. Do you not know that it is
Impracticable to tow logs from British
Columbia to supply the saw mills on
Puget Sound? The Straits Of Fuca
are So wide, and their waters so temp
estuous, that the risk of towing saw
logs across to this side is an effectual
bar against their importation. But if
tariff were needed to keep them out,
your remedy furnishes none. The
Mills bill, which the democratic party
would enact into a law if it could. i'm
poses no duty on saw logs. 1t is the
policy of the republican party to ad-
NIT raw materials from foreign coun-
tries duty free, in most cases, and to
levy duties on manufactured articles
from abroad, SO as to stimulate manu-
factures at home. You say the in
creased cost of manufactured articles,
to the consumer, by reason of duty,
reduces the surplus" cash in our
homes. Mr.. Cleveland, the democratic
national leader, said that the tariff is
a TAX, and that in every instance the
cost of the protected article is enhan-
ced the amount of the tariff, over and
above the actual cost of production at
home. This idea we hear continually
IN one form or another reiterated by
democratic orators and writer's. 1t is
as fallacious and as untrue as any,
thing possibly could be-except as to
the IMMEDIATE effect of tariff when
first lowed upon any article of import,
or i'll cases where the article in ques-
ton cannot be produced at home in
quantities sufficient to supply the
home market. Let us illustrate:
Thirty years ago we bought our
steel rails in Europe.
The republican party said: "This
is wrong. We are impoverishing the
country by purchasing steel rails from
other countries, when we have plenty
of the raw material at home from
which all the steel rails needed IN this
country can be produced, and the
millions of money now being sent to
Europe to purchase steel rails may
Just us we'll be kept within our own
borders"
The republican party, following its
protective tariff policy, levied duty
Of thirty dollars per ton on steel rails
imported from foreign countries. At
that time we were already paying six
ty dollars per ton for steel rails. That
price included the cost of production
i'll England, plus the cost of transpor-
taiion across the Atlantic-which was
quite an item.
The IMMEDIATE effect of the tariff
WAS to enhance the price of steel rails
to ninety dollars per ton. But the
SECONDARY effect was the erection of
large steel works in the United States:
and, not only the PRODUCTION at home
OF all the steel rails needed in orr
home markets, but COMPETITION at
home In the manufacture of steel rails
until the price of them has been brought
down to THIRTY dollars Il ton-iust half
what they cost before the tariff was lev
led
Did the tariff increase the cost of
steel rails within the United States
except temporarily? Did il? Even
while the price of steel rails was en-
HANGED by reason of the tariff. and
manufacturers at home for time made
enormous profits by reason of the tar
III, was not the money paid to them
retained at home?
But If the United States were COM
PEELED to paf ninety dollars per ton for
Its steel rails, when it could land them
here from England under free trade
for sixty dollars per ton, would it. not
still be wise to pay the enhanced value
and keep the money at home? The
republican party says YES! That is
what we call changing the balance
of trade in our favor.
Take another example:
The Mckinley bill places a heavy
tariff on tin plate.
There Is no tin.mined in the United
States. The raw material can be i'm
ported duty free, however. The IMME-
date effect of the duty Oh tin plate
is TO enhance the price of tin, and
thereby enhance the value of ali can