Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1890-05-12
A Chinese wa,,.-

= from tne Dubuque Telegraph.
The editor Of the Century Magazine, Mr..
X. w. Glider, has written letter to the
New York Tribune. in which he COM
mends the ways and means committee for
proposing to abolish the present duty of
thirty per cent on works of art, and
urges that an international copyright law
be passed at the same time. The Iri6>
une. in an editorial commenting upon it.
approves Of Mr.. elders suggestion to
couple the two propositions. and says:
One of his pungent sentences might
wisely be blszoned before the eyes of
every member of both houses of congress,
as an Indictment TO which this great ma
ton should be no longer obliged to plead
guilty. ave steal foreign literature, and
put up Chinese wall against foreign
paintings and statues" Happily. works
of art are transferred to the free list in
the Mckinley tariff bill. and are likely to
remain there.
This. in the estimation of the New
York Standard, sounds like an outbarst
of the old free trade enthusiasm of Mr..
Grosvenor, one OF the editors of the
Tribune "a Chinese wall against for
eign paintings and statuesl' "A Chi.
nese WALL" Think of IT, The Irib-
uRe admits that the tariff is "a Chi
nese wall" The Tribune. founded
by Horace Greeley and edited by White
law Reid A tariff. too, of only thirty per
cent is "a Chinese wall" Could the rank
est free trader say more? A thirty per
cent duty on foreign paintings and stats
ues-things that the rich people. and the
rich people only can afford to buy-is q
Chinese wall that keeps these good things
out and prevents the rich and cultured
from enjoying them. The Mckinley bill
puts them on the free list. and therefore
the Tribune is glad.
Let the workingmen of America, the
great body of consumers, note the sdmis
sion, and remember it for all time. Thirty
per cent on foreign paintings and statues,
according ~ the high priests OF protection.
constitutes "a Chinese wall" preventing
their admission. yet tariff. ranging in
some instances from 80 to 100 per cent is
levied on the necessarIes of life, increasing
the cost Of every article Of consumption
whether at home or abroad. We JON
heartily with the people who want, and
who properly demand, the free admission
of foreign paintings and statues, but how
can those who admit the propriety [ this
demand insist on a tariff on the tin that
enters into the workmsn's dinner pail, on
the coal that warns his hearth and cooks
his food, on the wooden cloth that con-
stitutes his clothing, and the wool from
which the cloth is made? Against all
these things the Tribune asks that "a
Chinese wall may be built higher and
higher, for it is not possible for it, now
1t has accepted the free trade definition
when applied to a tariff on art. to draw
and deny that the higher tariff on the
necessities OF life also erects "a Chinese
wall" against other importation. Does
the Tribune imagine that the American
people will much longer consent to the
continuance of policy that monstr0usly
increases the cost of living to the great
mass of men by tariff averaging forty
seven per cent and hsstens to take tar
III of thirty per per cent off works of art
because it constitutes "a Chinese WALL
that. by enhancing their cost, prevents
their importation into the United States