The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-10-27
From the ". Y. Pres Of To-day

The paramount question which the peo-
pie will decide oil November s, Is whether
they shall continue the protective policy
which has brought to them such magni-
fcent results i'm the generation that is
past, or whether ttey will try policy
which has been rejected by every civilized
and commercial nation with one notable
exception.
The election of Democratic President
this time means the election of IA Demo
cratic Senate and Democratic House OF
Representatives. and the uncertainty and
unrest which will ensue from the 10th os
November to the first Monday of Decem-
Der, 1893 when thesnew Congress meets.
would be almost as disastrous Temporal
rily TO the business of the country as the
revolution i'm our tariff system 10 which
the Democratic party is committed.
The questions OF the personality OF can
didates and the success of political par
ties both sink into insignlficance when
we consider the injurious results TO busi-
ness interests likely to follow Democratic
success. Fortunately the views and doc
trines OF the Democratic party are clearly
set forth in the platform, which was de
liberately adopted after an exciting dis
cussion by the Chicago convention, and
the Democrats who attacked protective
duties as unconstitutional, and who car
ried the day then, will as surely conquer
the conservative minority in Congress il
the party is successful at the polls.
The removal of protective duties means
free trade for American interests, and the
imposition of duties for revenue only
would have the same effect. Protection
lists are in favor of levying duties that
shall equalize the conditions between our
own and competing countries Ill the cost
of production. This means protection to
American labor. 1t is not policy OF eX-
clu-ion or prohibition. 1t is a policy Of
discrimination aud expansion.
Now, what are revenue duties? The
best definition L know of-one which has
withstood Democratic and Republican
criticism alike for nearly fifty years, is
that given by Secretary Walker in his
celebrated report of lS45. Tnat report
was the foundation of the low tariff legis-
lat on OF 1916 and OF the still lower tariff
of 1857, which caused a bankrupt treas
ury and brolght calamity 20 the coun-
try. Secretary Walker said that in "A rev.
enue tariff no duty should be levied
under any circumstances higher than
the lowesJ rate that would produce the
highest amount of revenue" This means
the greatest possible amount of impor-
tations of all competitive manufactured
goods: il means the absolute surrender of
the American market TO the foreign man-
ufacturer.
This definition of a revenue duty ex-
cludes any idea of protection. 1t has been
concurred in by all the leading free
traders aud tariff reformers of the United
States. David A. Wells says The pro-
tective system is opposed 10 the revenue
system because the government collects
the revenue on what comes in. while pro-
lection is secured TO the extent To which
commodities are kept out" Revenue
and protection are entirely exclusive of
| or hAr md an
another says Prof. Sumner of Yale.
The opinion so frequently expressed in
! Democratic newspapers that revenCe
| duty. to the extent OF the rates 10 imposes
| give protection TO the American pro
| ducer is fallacious. A duty, whel her
| high or low. that eQualiZes the conditions
between the American and foreign pro-
| duce is a protective duty. 1t makes no
difference whether IL is SO accidentally
| incidentally or Intentionally. \ duty
| that falls short OF this (as revenue duty
| always wild affords no more protection
than the absence OF all duties. If it, costs
| 75 cents TO produce an article in the
| United States and 30 cents in England,
| and these conditions remain constant, a
| duty of 20 cents gives the American mar
ket the English manufactures, because
he can always produce aud self his pro-
duct for five cents less than his American
| competitor
III, by reason OF the change of condi-
tions. a revenue duty becomes accident
| ally protective, it becomes at once the
| du OF Congress, following the doctrine
laid down by Secretary Walker and the
| Chicago plat form OF 1892. To reduce that
| duty TO "A revenue standard.
| | think IL will be seen from this that
purely revenue duty never can b. pro-
tective Tnomas jefferson aud Andrew
! jackson, who maintained that our own
people should be defended against the
products OF cheaper foreign labor, were
strict protectoulsts and occupied the
same position held by the Republican
party to-day.
Democrats claim that Republicans
| have constantly increased tariff rates
! and that the act of 1890 imposes higher
duties than were levied by any Of the acts
which preceded 1t.
Nothing could be more misleading or
! more false than this. The orators and
newspapers which make this statement
either have little knowledge of the indus
! trial history of the country, or they wish
| TO keep the truth from their hearers and
readers, Four important reductions OF
our tariff have taken place since 1890;
| namely, by the acts of 1870. 1872, 1882 ana
1890 by the provisions OF the act OF July
7 IL, 1870, there we're added To the free list
, i1S dutiable articles. The rates of duty
were reduced upon for.y-nine other arti-
cles By the act Of June u. 1872, 2lj items
| were added TO the Tree llSt, anu duties
were lowered on forty two articles. by
the act Of March 3, 1883. u further addi-
tion of seventy-two articles was made 10
the free list, and rates were reduced on
'421 others, embracing every schedule and
almost every article on the dutiable list.
| The actual percentage OF reduction made
ia rates by tnat act was 5sl4 per cent. Tariff
reformers claim that the Republican tar
IN commission OF 1888 promised To reduce
| rates - 10 - per cent. and that n kepub-
lican Congress failed to keep this promise
| but instead of a reduction of 20 ~ - pei