Telegram-herald., 1891-05-12
Az rscoxcxfyAsLs rAxlss.

An fscOScKtvAsL. IAkIFs-
The Democrat yesterday RECALLED It's
readers With very funny article on
Mckinley sophssms," so-eailed. IL
quoted the following sentence from
AeKlnlsy's recent speech: "A tzTsff
levied for revenue and for revenue
only is always paid by the consumer.
But this Ceases To be 80 the very IN
slant We are abls % manufacture
among ourselves. Competition regu-
lases the price" And then the Demo-
crat added at 10 hardly possbie to
conceive Of tariff which will afford
. revenue of two hundred millions OF
dollars which will not also be . pro-
tsctsve tariff in many branches OF man.
ufactures. And just there lies the
very reason why Democratic tariff
for revenue only" can not be made to
work successfully in this country, until
conditions and circumstances have
greatly changed.
The protectionists start out with the
idea that two or three hundred million
dollars must be raised to meet the legiti-
mate running expenses of this govern
ment. The Democrats do not deny
that. The sums of money raised for
that purpose are known as revenue. A
tariff for revenue only"-the idea Of
the Democracy-nust necessarily be
laid on articles, the like OF which arc
not produced in this country. Why?
Because, 90 soon ~ you levy duty on
articles, the like of which are pro-
duced here, you discourage the impor-
tation to some extent and to such ex-
tent give home producers preference in
the home markets. That is protec-
ton. A tariff laid on articles which We
can produce may be both . revenue
tariff and . protective tariff. Ii the
tariff is comparatively low, it does not
hinder importation much. Products
come in from abroad and the duties
collected furnish revenue, while some
protection is also afforded. If,..however,
the tariff 10 30 high that foreign pro-
ducers can not afford to pay it. then it
furnishes no revenue and Is protection
only. This extreme has not been often
resorted to.
II We are to raise all our reve nues by
"tariff for revenue only" IS the
Democrats advocate, We must raise
them on such articles as the people
must hsve-the necessaries of lite
which are not produced here. Wecould
not raise them upon necessaries, the
like of which we produce, for that
would afford protection. Neither could
we rely upona revenue tariff on foreign
luxuries alone, for the people generally
do not buy luxuries and we should
have little revenue. But the leading
necessaries which we cannot produce
like tea,codee. sugar, spices, Care
90 comparatively few in number, that
70 afford sufficient revenue, We should
have to levy very heavy .yevenue tar
ifs, which, ~ we produce nothing Of
the kind hefe, would ~ q thrift TAI
pure and simple. The people would moi
stand 1t. 1t is wholly Impracticable.
Hence to relieve these few articles from
% heavy burden, resort would have
TO be had TO tariff upon other articles
in view of which, it is, as the Democrat
says "hardly possible to conceive of q
tariff, which will afford q revenue oil
two hundred millions of dollars, which
will not also be q protective tariff in
many branches Of manufactures, and
yet that inconceivable kind of tariff
is just what Cleveland and all the horde
of visionary tariff reformers have beer
howiina for all these years. And
furthermore that is just the kind of a
tariff that the Republican party has al.
ways insisted is both inconceivable and
impracticable and so, it seems, says the
Democrat.