The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1891-10-17
SILVER NOT THE TARIFF.

NHN 'p'N N
ring to the Ohio campaign, says:
In the debate between Mckinley an
Campbell in Ohio, Governor Campbell
makes exactly the argument which W
have been warning the republican part.
for years would be made if they did no
do justice to silver. He points to tn,
steadily falling prices under the protec
tive tariff, and charges that fall to thu
tariff. He tells that when Egypt fell
the country was owned by a few men
when Persia went down, l per cent Of
her population owned all the land; wher
Rome went down, 1900 men owned the
then known world. And it seems Majol
Mckinley has not the ability to meet
that argument, and explain how it was
and why there has been a fall in this
country on prices.
The TRIBUNE is right in saying that
Major Mckinley has not the ability tc
meet Governor Campbell's argument
but only partly right in its conclusions
as to what caused the downfall
of the nations named. Governor
Campbell charged their downfall
to the concentration of wealth into
the hands of a few men. He c%ontended,
and justly commended, that a high pro-
tectlve policy inevitably directed the
wealth Of a country into the possession
of the limited number favored by the
tariff. The Utah paper as earnestly
holds that it was the want of a sufficient
volume of money that destroys empires
and points to the historical fact that when
the mines of Rome gave out and the coin
of the world grew less and less the farmers
in the valleys of the Tiber and the Pc
could neither pay the principal nor the
interest on what they owed for their
lands and the latter were forfeited to the
landlords. For want of money the peas
ant class became impoverished, while
the wealthy increased their store until
they had absorbed the nations money.
Reasoning from these grounds the
Salt Lake journal holds that unless the
United States utilities it's silver as money
all that the term money implies, the
gold and with it the wealth of the ma
ion will pass to the custody of IA small
minority of the people. There is no
question that dear money leads to the
mpoverishment of the many and the en-
ichment of the few. Nor is there any
that the same conditions follow
he ex%actions of a high protective tariff.
We can see this in the relative wealth of
he nine manufacturing states with the
emaining thirty-five. With less than
ne-third of the population of the coun-
ry the New England states, with New
'ork, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,
YIN considerably over one-half of the
ssessable wealth of the United States.
hey know to what they owe their
'ealth, and while the great manufacture
,g interests of the nine states support
very high-taritf measure they violently
ppose the full reconciliation or free
of silver. 1t is to their interest
} keep out cheap money as well as for
,gn manufactured products. Protection
nd a gold standard are inseparably al
ed. They go hand in hand. !
1t is true that the free coinage of sill :
IT would tighten the burdens imposed
pom the people by tariff taxation, but .
is equally true that free coinage and a
wer tariff taxation would render their
lrdens comparatively easy and place I
Iem in a more Independent attitude I
ward the creditor class. And this is ,
st what the protected states do not
ant to see. They have SO long received
ibute from the debtor states that what
once given them through a mistaken l
'vernment policy they now exact as
cir just dues The tariff and the ques- !
IN of finance is so intimately connected !
at one cannot be violently disturbed {
thont perceptibly affecting the other. !
nat is the history Of our tariff legisla-
IN since the foundation of the govern
ent. But it cannot be successfully de-
ed that a high protective tariff is the
ost powerful factor in diverting wealth
the few. Free coinage of silver or a ,
rger volume of money may retard the ,
w of wealth to favored states, but 4;
time it will get there. Capitalization .
wealth is the inevitable result of a ;
Oh tariff. 1t may also be the corollary =,
very dear money. Admitting the g
lthfulness of the latter proposition it
res not disturb the position taken by
overnor Campbell. He showed that h
G concentration of money produced the C
'wnfall of nations. He also proved that O
e present tariff sent the money of the n
untry into the hands of the great pro- S
ctcd manufacturers. Therefore it may 7
stated that the effect of a high tariff /
d of dear money is the same driv- /
3 wealth into the possession of a
Ir Would anpear IN one at this dis 4,