Arizona republican., 1891-07-01
SOME PROTECTION GEMS.
CULLEO FROM THE SPEECHES AT
 THE TARIFF LEAGUE BANQUET.

Mckinley Explains the Two Kinds Of Tariff - Senator Aidrich Gives some
 Figures on Exports and Imports-what
 Others Said.
 Major McKinley-We will have tariffs so long as we have q government, and the only difference arr ong the people is as to whether the tarif shall be protect i've in its nature or W neither it shall be levied having in view the single purpose of raising the requisite revenue for gov ernmental purposes. All of us agree whether we are Democrats or whether we are Eepublican,-that the tariff is the wisest and best mode by which to raise the great bulk of the revenue re- quireA to conduct )ur government, only differing as to the principle upon which the tariff shall be evie,l. whether on the English system fo' the purpose of reve- nue only. or for the additional purpose of giving eucoura cement to our own in- dustries and our own enterprises and employment to our own labor And. as We have to resort to tariffs. as we must tax foreign products-whether we be Democrats or whether we be Republic ans-to keep the wheels of government in operation. the party to which belong declares that those tariffs shall be so levied upon foreign. competing products tp S-i,nulrta X tpat.if,Ip ,rapins An,ari. can development, and give remunera- tive employment to American labor and d home market to the American farmer! Why resort to revenue rather than a protective tariff?
 A revenue tariff such as is advocated by our political opponents is always paid by tine consumer. There is no exception anywhere A .ariff levied for revenue. and revenue only, is always borne by the consuming nation importing from abroad 1t ia SO in England, and it is so wherever revenue tariffs are enforced. That may be SD primarily with Pro tective tariff but 1t ceases to be so the very moment we are capable of success fully manufacturing among ourselves, and then competition at home regulates and controls the prices to the advantage of the consumer. No man can contro- vert that; but mugwump. Free-trader or Democrat. whatever your name. the tariff yOu advocate is always paid by the consumer. and human history and our own experience have taught us that in the vast majority of cases Protective tariffs are never paid by the American consumer.
 Senator Aldrich-For the purpose of ascertaininS with the greatest degree of fairness the relative effects of a revenue tariff and of duties levied under the Pro tective system upon our foreign com mercc. have taken for the basis of con- parisOn two periods of equal length. the first the fifteen years from 1Si7 to 1861, inclusive, and the second from 1876 to 1890. inclusive. The first period, with the revenue tariff of lSi6 and 1857 in force. includes In the view of all revenue ''reformers" and Free-traders the most prosperous days of the republic. No FretA-tr;,de argument is complete that does not attempt by series of ingenious percentages tO show that during this periul the progress and prosperity of the United States was greater than at any other time in it's history. 1t certainly more fairly represents the effects of low tariff legislation than any other time that c0ull be selected. The latter period, from 1876 to lS9O. may be sail tO repre-. sent DS fairly the effects of Protective tariff
 The entire foreign commerce Of tho United States for the first period agSre- gated &J. 73j. .O00. GOO in value, and for the latter perinl S20. 0.33i ,000. .OOO. ar an annu- al average for the revenue tarif per'od of Si53. .C0O. .OiD and for the protective pe- riod of El. .:Ij6. .OJO. 900 It cannot be said that this cnUrmous increase was the nat ural result of the growth of the country and its increase in population. as the average annual value per capita for the first period was $l1.03. and in the latter perIoI &23.sO establishing the fact thai under the F Q lence of Protective sys ten our forrlsn cOmmerce increased 47 per cent. more rapidly than the popula ton of the country. In view of the state- nents that were made in regard to the prohibitIvP character of the tariff bill oi lSgJ. II may be well to state in this con nertiun that the valne of our imports and exports of foreign merchandise for the five months ending Feb. 2S, 1891. was S1C9UO0 600. as compared with value of %14l. .UO0. .OOO for the corresponding period of last year under tho tariT act of 1885. The comparison is more striking if it is made as il should be-between dutiable imports and exports. In the Free-trade l~riod the excess of dutiable imports over exports was $5D,OOO,000 In the Protect i've period the excess of exports over dutiable imports was Si,574OOO.OOO The annual per capita of dutiable imports waS si sS in the first period and $1.W in the Iast, while the annual per capita of exports was Gi.73 in the first period and Sl3.51 in the last. It will thus appear that for every dollar of iutiable imports in the years lSi1 to 1861 we exported ninety eight cents in value q. domestic products. and that in the years lS76 to lSyO. for every dollar of imports we ex- ported Sl7l of domestic products In other words, our exports were per cent less than our imports under revenue tariff, and our exports were 70 per cent greater than our imports under a Pro tective system We find, then, not only that the aggregate of our foreign com merce has increased more rapidly under the Protective system. but that when the