Sturgis advertiser. (Sturgis, Dakota [S.D.]) 1887-1???, 1891-08-13
time. And everything except labor IL
much cheaper than IN Washington's
time. Labor is far better paid


IA correspondent writes to us from
Louisville, KY, asking whether he is
right in maintaining that aprevious to
1891 the United States did not have q
protective tariff for sufficient number
of years In succession to demonstrate
fully its good Effects and that athe
protection given was not so high and
comprehensive as it should have been.
In the beginning of the Government
means of transportation and of commu-
nication between the old and new world
were so costly and dangerous that a low
tariff rate was qnite as effective in keep
ing out foreign wares as was rate many
times higher, after the Atlantic cable
and the six day steamship came to re-
duce cost, time, and risk involved in
overseas commerce. The duties which
the First Congress adiudged sufficient
protective would afford almost no pro.
lection now, when foreign goods can be
brought here so cheaply, quickly. and
certainly. Science and Invention have
almost annihiated the natural protec-
tion extended to American industry in
1889 by the wide and terrible Atlantic
Besides, it was not practicable to levy
extremely high duties before the new
industries had sufficiently developed to
insure an adequate supply of domestic
products AS our productive capacity
expanded, the protective system,
in accordance with the policy out
lined by Alexander Hamilton in his
report on manufactures, was extended
by subsequent acts to the number of
fourteen before the war Of 1919 broke
out. Still our industries were yet young,
and tariff legislation up to this time, in
most instances, had been only approach
ing the efficient protection which Hamil-
ton recommended, so soon as supply of
domestic products was assured to the
people.
During the war of 1912, and several
years after, tariff legislation, while in
the main of decidedly protective char
acter, was too radical and uncertain to
produce the results. The tariff of 1916
was intended to be protective, and its
principle OF levying imposts was perhaps
more truly such than that of any pre-
ceding tariff. But extraneous conditions
notably the sudden transition from the
excessive war tariff of the years just
preceding it, and abnormalIy low prices
abroad, which came in it's wake-neu-
tralized its effect so that it disappointed
the expectation of it's friends. Nine
upplementary acts of a more or less
protective character were passed in the
succeeding years, the last in 1882. I'm
der such conditions, the fullest benefits
of protection could not reasonably be
expected.
In 1888 the course of tariff legislation
was reversed, and for the first time
tended toward free trade The move
ment resulted in the panic of 1887.
Popular sentiment compelled return
to protection in 1912. Then came the
free trade tariff of 1916. made more rad
ical by the act of 1857, which continued
to the enactment Of the Morrill, tariff in
1861.
1t appears, then, that our correspond
emit is quite right Never before the
war had the country enjoyed undis-
turbed and adequate protection for so
long time accompanied by so reliable
assurances of it's permanency, as has
been the case since the enactment of the
Morrill, tariff. And no other tariff period
can boast Of results so gratifying and
glorious. American Economist