The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-08-18
SEATTLE. TUEsDAK. lug. rs.
A v.rR xAarrr VS. FREE TRADE.


me Mckinley tariff is fair effort to
make protection equal for the producers
md manufacturers Of the country as OPP
posed to the Mills bill, which wanted pro-
lection for the manufacturer and the
Southern agriculturist alone. AS John
Sherman says, protection must be equal
or it will be wholly rejected, :" and the Nc
Kinley act Is an honest effort at fair
tariff, which aims to give protection to all
the states, TO the East for its manufactures,
and to the West for its materials. The
Mills bill on the other hand tried to strip
the West of protection and yet continue
protection 10 the East and South. Instead
of this one-sided and sectional Democratic
protection for the Eastern manufacturer
and the Southern grower of staples, the
Mckinley tariff offers the Western farmer
fair and equal protection with the East
ern manufacturer.
It seemed right to Cleveland. Mills Il
Co. that the consumers of the country
should pay 100000 600 tax on sugar an
nually to protect 100000 or $l5,000,000
worth of product in Louisiana, but they
deemed it outrageous that the manufac-
turers should pay S., 900, 600 or 81, 000, 900 on
wool to protect one of the largest agricult-
ural interests of the country. The Nc
Kinley tariff seeks to be fair to both the
Eastern manufacturer and the Western
producer, and while giving the country
free sugar gives bounty to the growers of
domestic sugar from sugar cane, beets,
sorghum and maple, whose amount, ac-
cording to the treasury estimates, will be
as follows: On cane sugar, $9,549,375; on
beet sugar, $500, 900; on sorghum sugar, $780,
900; on maple sugar, $4,000; total, $l0,-
229,375.
This bounty is figured on the probable
production as follows: Cane, 465 100000
pounds; beets, q, 000, 600; sorghum, 2,OO0,-
600; total, 100000. Maple, 100000,
making grand total of 500, 600. 900 pounds.
This bounty is defensible in the matter
of beet sugar, which may possibly become
great national industry some day, but in
the matter of cane sugar, sorghum and
maple 1t was compromise necessary to
hasten the enactment of the law. The
Mckinley tariff saves US at least $4,000
600 on sugar and has largely educed its
price below the figures which prevailed
last year.
Instead Of this fair tariff of Mckinley,
Mr.. Mills favored free raw materials,
whose logical outcome would be free
trade, for the Western wool growers would
not protect wooden manufacturers in face
of free wool, but would retaiate upon the
manufacturers who had helped to repeal
the duty on wool by all becoming free
traders. The Western producer would say
90 the Eastern manufacturer, "If you will
not make protection stand for a fair tariff
then We will feed you free trade" and If
the Eastern manufacturer dares at the
next presidential election to elect a Demo-
cratic president and congress on the basis
of the Mills bill he will lose his last
chance TO choose wisely between a fair
tariff for protection, the Mckinley law,
and free trade which is the logical ultimate
of the Mills bill.
The essence of the argument for the Nc
Kinley tariff is that every importation of
foreign COMPETING products displaces the
purchase of that much domestic products
which ought TO be produced bv the Ameri-
can people. Let US consider some of its
results. The Mckinley law repealed sew
eral hundred revenue duties. cheanened
several hundred articles to American con-
sumers; the volume of free importations is
far greater than under the old tariff Of
ISSS: the Mckinley tariff has made two
reductions of duties for every increase. and
made our foreign trade larger than ever
before so far as our import trade il con.
cerne6, since the law so far from prohibit-
ing or preventing importations has en-.
couraged them. While the Mckinley tar.
if has increased the freedom of trade 81
far as foreign articles which we cannot
supply 10 our own people from our own
soil and industry are concerned it has not
lowered protective duties to the point Of
cpeuing our home market 10 the nro-
ducts of cheaper labor and capital abroad
which we can supply TO our own people and
which therefore come into competition
with the products Of American industry.
but has Increased the duties where ey.
eessive importation of competing foreign
products indicated insufficient produc.
ton. The importation Of dutiable article,
has therefore fallen of under the new
tariff, and American labor and capital in
American furnaces, factories and work.
shops are turning ont millions of good.
formerly supplied from abroad. Here ar,
the figures Of nine months of the new
tariff compared with the corresponding
period of the preceding year;
prtabie imports. October &, ISso, 10
July l, 1881 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SSi.Al,Hk
putisels imports, October 6, 1859. 20
July j, 1880. SN9Ey0,o0S
Decrease under Mckinley law. S55.jOo,0
The increase in free imports during tn,
nine months OF Mckinley ism-SS5. oOo, 600
offsets the decrease in dutiable import.
--S55, SOC, oo0,-and shows net increase il
ali imports of SSi ,500,ooo
The duties removed yielded revenue
rather than protection. and since only pro
tcctive duties should be levied, unless III,
government needs more money than they
produce, the revenue duties were REPEALED
In order 10 do away With the surplus
This repeal of revenue duties has cheap