Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1891-06-13
SOME PROTECTION GEMS.
cuLLEo FROM THE SPEECHES AT
THE TARIFF LEAGUE BANQUET.

cuLLED FROM THE SPEECHES AT
THE TARIFF LEAGUE BANQUET.
Mckinley Explains the Two Kinds of
Tariff - Senator Aldrich Gives Some
Figures on Exports and Imports-what
Others Said.
Major McKinley-We will have tariffs
so long as we have "a government, and
the only difference among the people is
as to whether the tariff shall be protect
i've in its nature or whether 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 Republicans-that the tariff is
the wisest and best mode by which to
raise the great bulk of the revenue re-
quired to conduct our government, only
differing as to the principle upon which
the tariff shall be levied, whether on the
English system for the purpose of reve-
nue. only, or for the additional purpose
of giving encouragement 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
h01 1n CO
levied upon foreign, competing products
as to stimulate American genius, Ameri-
can development, and give remunera-
tive employment to American labor and
a home market to the American farmer!
Why resort to a revenue rather than a
protective tariff?
A revenue tariff such as is advocated
by our political opponents is always paid
by the consumer. There is no exception
anywhere A tariff levied for revenue,
and revenue only, is always borne by
the consuming nation importing from
abroad. 1t is so in England, and it is SO
wherever revenue tariffs are enforced.
That may be SO primarily with a Pro-
tective tariff, but it 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
ascertaining 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
merce, l have taken for the basis of COM
parison two periods of equal length, the
first the fifteen years from 1847 to 1861,
inclusive, and the second from 1876 to
1890, inclusive. The first period, with
the revenue tariff of 1916 and 1857 in
force, includes in the view of all revenue
"reformers" and Free traders the most
prosperous days of the republic. No
Free trade argument is complete that
percentages to show that during this
period the progress and prosperity of the
United States was greater than at any
other time in its history. 1t certainly
more fairly represents the effects of low
tariff legislation than any other time
that could be selected. The latter period,
from 1876 to 1890, may be said to repre-
sent as fairly the effects of Protective
tariff
The entire foreign commerce of the
United States for the first period aggre-
gated So, 79J, 900, 900 in value, and for the
latter period $40, 1884, 00o, 600, or an annu-
al average for the revenue tariff period
of 1888, 900, 900 and for the protective pc
Rod of 81, 1856, 100000. 1t cannot be said
that this enormous 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 $170S, and in the latter
period $3.50, establishing the fact that
under the influence of a Protective sys-
TEN our foreign commerce increased AZ
per cent. more rapidly than the popula-
ton of the country. In view of the state
ments that were made in regard to the
prohibitive character of the tariff bill Of
1890, it may be well to state in this con-
nection that the value of our imports and
exports of foreign merchandise for the
five months ending Feb. 2S, 1891, was
$3.50 900, 900, as compared with value of
$744, 900, 600 for the corresponding period
of last year under the tariff act of 1888.
r,fr%,-
made as it should be-between dutiable
imports and exports. In the Free-trade
period the excess of dutiable imports over
exports was $59,000,000 In the Protect
i've period the excess of exports over
dutiable imports was $4,574, 100000. The
annual per capita of dutiable imports
was $7.9S in the first period and 1890 in
the last, while the annual per capita of
exports was $7.73 in the first period and
$1357 in the last. 1t will thus appear
that for every dollar of dutiable imports
in the years 1S47 to 1861 we exported
ninety eight cents in value of domestic
products, and that in the years 1876 to
1890, for every dollar of imports we ex-
ported Sill 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 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
item of exports alone is considered the
relative rate of advance is much greater,
and l may say, much greater than that
attained by any other commercial nation.
Senator Hiscocl-I cannot go over in
detail the tariff law of 1890 and make an
argument in favor of each increase of
duty upon the various products or manu-
features of wool, cotton or fax, or from
the metals. The subject is being illu-
minated by far brighter light than l
can shed upon it-that of experience.