Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1891-05-25
The TWO TARIFF POLICIES.
One FavOrs the n .nuiacturera, the
Other Bath the Manufacturers and


Producers.
Portland Oregonisn.i
II Is we'll known that the general
policy of the democratic party ~ re-
gard 10 the tariff ,s free trade IN mate.
rails and prot ction tor the tnanutac-
tured gooi-, while the general policy
OF the Republican patty i. prot ctio,.
for the producers Of materials as " ell
rs the ma"uiactur. rs. The Mills
bill was framed in acco,d with Demo-
cratic policy, and the Mckinley b'l.
in accord with Republican policy.
On either side there we're some tx
cert'ons, 'ndte but the general fact
is rs stated. Most Democrats WHO
discuss the tariff question choose TO
overlook this fundamental diff. renee
be, w-en the tariff policies Of the two
parties. Now the W.st is gr. ut
producer o mat. rails; the ksst Is the
great producer Of manufactured
xouds. IL follows Their fore that free
trade IN materials is not acceptable to
the " est, yet free trade in materials
il hat the Eastern manufacturing
interests desire. YET the EASTERN
manufacturers stand up, to tho last
man, for the protection If their goods
which they wish to deny to the pro.
uucers of materials out Of which the
goods are made.
Thus state OF facts is extremely en-
bsrrassing to the Western democrat,
who, however, tries to avoid tn. con
ciusion by insisting that the Mck,n>
le, act Is more favorable to the uarl>
utartut+rs tnAn the Mills bill was.
Thus the Albany democrat say:
Nv q put the question: directly to the
Or%g"h.a": Did the Mills bill pro
via. for an increase or decrease in the
exist Y rate Of duties o,, manufactured
woulrn goods, aud if SO. how much?
Did the Mckinley bill increase or
REFUGE the duty on manufactured
WOODEN goods, and il SO, how much!"
such questions can be answered a..
curs,-I! onI, by ar. full study Of s-p-
arate items. Tut 1t may be said tina,
the Mills till old propose some Heu-
eral reduction OF duties OIL WOODEN
goods, vet TO reduction equal to the
advantag. S which n,anufactur, r.
would obtain through tree wool;
while the Mckinley hill has mad..
some Increase Of duties on WOODEN
goods, particularly III those lines most
important for p. r-ons who want for
evn goods Of high finish and value.
ltut this doesn't touch the main point
at all. Free wool ought to mean free
goods; vet the democrat tariff policy
wnuid give the manufacturers tree
wool aud s'ill allow them protection
Tor the goods manufactured from It.
1t is no suffi. INT answer TO SAY that
under the Mills bill there was q "per.
centagr" OF reduction on manufac>
tur-d woolens. Tie reduc'ion WIS
not equal to the advantage ff-rrd in
free WOOL. Free traie to TIE wool
grower should mean also free trade
TO the WOODEN manufacturer.
The democratic policy would allow
protection only to III. nanufactur. rs;
the republican tariff policy +qualze>
protection between the producer Of
the materials an the manufacturer Of |
the goods. This is the ~h,'e case in
the fewest possible words. We NAV
perhaps exrect men Of thu East,
through selfish and short sigh,e ed
greed. 10 demand free trade in wool,
mineral ores and other materials. ant
vet have a tar.ff that will shut GU,
foreign goods; hut the producers Of
materials ar. not going to submit 10
this. AMI the manufacturers OF goods
will find it out. The producers of
mat. ria's, il free trade is forced on
them, will lin the party Of free goods
with a rush, under the conviction that
il free trade is SO good 4 thing they
.0,,,SN kuc ,,,,,,h e