The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1891-04-08
Who Are Free Traders!

written leJIer IN winch ne asserts
strenuously that he is not free trader.
" stand with the democratic party in
favor of tariff reform, which means
reduction of the present excessive and
iniquitous tariff and the retention of
the tariff limited to the necessities of
the government, economically admin
istered," says the New York governor.
The letter was written to the president
of the Single Tax Club of New York,
and was read at meeting of that club,
on last week Thursday evening, which
was the anniversary of the birth of
Thomas Jefferson. 1t was free trade
meeting, and Governor Hill, as promi-
nent member of the party which is sup
posed to stand for free trade, was invited
to be present. Instead of going, how
ever, he sent the letter from which the
above quotation is made. The COVER
nor announces that he is earnestly
opposed to the attempt which is now
being made in some quarters to under
mine the sound and conservative posi-
ton of the democratic party upon this
question and to commit it irrevocably
to the doctrine of free trade" The
men who are engaged in this attempt,
he says, have no right to call them
selves democrats.
The position of the democratic party,
as defined by Governor Hill, is that of
support for a moderate tariff, just
high enough and extensive enough to
cover the necessary expenses of the
government. 1t is tariff for rev.
enue only" The party recognizes
that large amount of money must be
raised to run the machinery of the
government, and it sees no other prac-
ticable way of raising it. The tariff is
tax, the party says, but it is necessary
to levy taxes to raise the revenue. The
tariff being a tax, there are but two
things to think of in preparing sched-
ule, one being to make the revenue
come up to the national expense, and
the other to cause the tax to fall on
those articles of commerce and those
classes of the community which can
best sustain them. 1t is all tax, say
Governor Hill and the democrats, and
great pity it is that we have to pay
any taxes; but this seems TO be the
only feasible way of raising our rev.
enue. We therefore support moder-
ate tariff law-one that is not likely to
raise more revenue than is needed.
So says Governor Hill and his tariff
reformers." Now what do the men
who attended the free trade meeting at
New York protest. They, too, regard
the tariff as tax, and they sigh as
deeply as the governor does at the
thought of paying any tax at all. They
admit, however, that the revenue must
be raised, and they have their ideas of
how it should be raised. Free trade,
with them, is such blessing that it
should be secured as soon as possible.
1t is such blessing, and a tariff on
imports is such curse, that they would
substitute for the present method some
form of direct taxation-anything, in
fact, that will allow freer trade between
the nations.
Wherein do these positions conflict?
Why should the New York meeting
have Kissed the letter of Governor Hill?
Both condemn the tariff, yet the COVER
nor sees no way out of it, while the
radical free traders are bold enough to
say that there is a way out. Is not the
only difference between the two one of
expediency? Both start with the same
assumption, namely, that the tariff is
tax, and the less we have of it the
better. Governor Hill and the mass of
the democratic party would reduce that
tax " to the lowest possible point
consistent with a sufficient revenue /;
the radical free traders would not stop
there, but would keep on until this
whole " tax " should be eradicated and
a new form of tax substituted for it.
The radicals follow their logic to its
ultimate consequence, but the governor
and his friends get frightened at the
prospect and stop at the convenient
resting-place of a g tariff for revenue
only" 1t is exceedingly important to
the future of this country that no pro-
tectionist be deceived by the attitude
of Governor Hill. If the latter, by
chance, should be the democratic can.
didate for the presidency next year, he
would be in exactly the same position
as regards the tariff that Mr.. Cleveland
occupied when he ran in 1888. Neither
of these leading democrats believes III
protection. They are free traders at
far as their limited comprehension OF
the problem goes, and there is no rea
sOn 10 doubt but that a LITTLE fresh light