West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1891-11-19

pHoticdn Congress elected since 1874
an increase ofthe tariff. occasionally
permitting the repeal or lessening
OF tax that went into the Treas.
ury in order to keep away from or
to increase the taxes levied for their
benefit. And such will always be
the case. Protection left to il,
natural momentum never stops
short of prohibition, and prohibi-
tory walls are always needed to be
built higher or to be patched and
strengthened. A protective tariff
never has given and, from its own
nature, scver can give stability and
contentment to the very interests
which 1t assumes to protect. Even
if its victims are too weak or spirit
less to agltate for its decrease, its
benefciaries are sure to agitate for
its increase.
Now, let us see where stability
and conten.meRt have been found.
Every representative of New Eng
land, except one who did not vote.
voted against the Walker tariff of
l846, and prophesied disastrous
consequences to New England man
ufacturers from its passage. That
tariff was about 25 per cent on the
average of dutiable goods, as
against quite 60 per cent under the
Mckinley bill. In eleven years
every New England representative
voted for 20-per. cent reduction of
the tariff OF 1916, and two-thirds
of these representatives voted for
the tariff Of 1857, which made
reduction of rs per cent, bringing
down the average rates to less than
10 per cent, and so we'll contented
were the manufacturer of that sec
tion with those rates that whom the
Morrill, bill of 1861 took the first
step backward toward protection
their representatives. in Congress
declared that they asked no increase
OF protection. Hon. Alexander
Rice OF Massachusetts,, said in the
House "The manufacturer asks
no additional protection. John
Sherman, protesting to urge the bill
IN the interest Of the farmer, admit
ted " he manufacturers have asked
over and over again to be let alone" "
Hr. Morrill, himself has since said
that the tagiff Of 1861 was not
asked for and but coldly welcomed
by manufactu' ers." Senator Il.
VI. Il. Hunter of Virginia, patron
of the bill of 1857, said Have
any Of the mani facturers come
here to complain or to ask for new
duties ? Is it not notorious that il
we were to leave it to the manufac.
turcrs OF New England themselves,
to 'he manufacturers Of hardware.
textile fabrics, ETC., there would
be large majority against any
change DO we not know that the
woolen manufacture dates its revi-
val from the tariff OF 1857, which
altered the duties on wool ?''
But the tariff of 1861 was passed
by politicians who were seeking by
it's passage to make sure of the vote
OF Pennsylvania for the Republican
party. War tariffs followed, and
the old road has been travelled over
again. The manufacturers, who in
1916 were prosperiHg by their own
efforts and asked nothing from the
Government, having once received
protection became 30 clamorous for
higher and still higher tariffs that
they embroiled the country aliena-
ted the people. So, likewise, the
manufacturers who we're contented
and prosperous under The low reve-
nue., or, as they now call il, the free
trade Of 1857, and asked nothing
OF the Government, having been
protected against their will soon
lost their self-relIancs, and have
veKed our ears ever since with al
most frantic cries for higher tariffs,
And just as the "Tariff Of Abomi.
nations" 80 angered and outraged
the people that they gave what
would have been death blow to
the protective system had not the
war iuteryened, so, unless the
American people have lost their in
telligence and their spirit, the Nc
Kinlcy bill, which is far more a
class and monopoly bill than the
"Tarif Cf Abominatlons," will
work a like revolution on public