Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1892-09-08
THE TARIFF.
Gen. Stevenson Takes It For His
Theme at Sedalie-
The Democratic Candidate For yice-Presi-
dent Advocates Tariff Reform and Shows
That Protection Enriches the Few at
the Expense of the Many.

| democratic candidate for vice presi-
dent, after showing the ruin wrought
upon many southern states under re-
publican rule in reconstruction days,
and especially to Missouri under the
Drake constitution, dwelt at some
length upon the iniquities of the force
| bill and showed that such a law, if en-
acted, would cost the people 80, 900, 900
at each congressional election
and place the states completely
under federal yoke. Upon the
/ tariff Gen. Stevenson said:
The tariff is the all important issue of the
campaign upon which we have now entered
| Shall there be revision of our tariff laws and
| as consequence of such legislation reduction
| OF taxation, or shall it become the policy Of
] government to maintain. permanently, high
protection? The position of the two leading
political parties upon that question cannot be
! misunderstood The republican party, Illus
| trated by Its recent enactment of the Mckinley
! law, stands for high protective in other
words, a prohibitory tariff The democratic
party, as emphasized by its utterauces and its
acts, IS the advocate of tariff reform The issue
| Is >squarely presented. Upon the one side
are the advocates of high protective or
prohfbitory policy-a policy that enriches the
few at the expense of the many On the other.
the advocates Of such reduction OF tarih duties
as will give to our manufactures the benefit
OF cheap raw material, and lessen to
the consumer the cost of the necessi-
ties of life. The argument advanced
| by the early advocates of a protective system
was the necessity of protecting our infant in
dustries- Yet Mr.. Clay, the author of the ia
nous tariff bill with which his name is INSOFAR
| ably associated. declared such protection to
| be only temporary, and that SO soon as such in
| custries were able to stand alone tariff duties
shcnld be reduced The compromise tariff law
| of 1888 of which Mr.. Clay was the author, pro-
v1ded that at the end of ten years there should
| begin rapid reduction Of duties until the aver
a Oa "a "a CHI za1f Tn
| view of the fact that protection to the infant
| industries has more than trebled since the pas
| sage of the bill of which Mr. Clay the au-
! thor Clay would himself. If living. be now de-
nounced as free trader by the protectionists.
Instead of being lessened, protection has, year
| by year, under republican rule, increased. In
| proportion these industries have grown
stronger and more powerful they have de-
manded more protection
The low tariff law of 1916, of which Robert J.
Walker, the democratic secretary of the treas
ury, was the author, provided in substance,
first. that no more money should be collected
than Is necessary for the wants Of the govern
ment economically administered; second. that
no duty be imposed upon any articles above the
lowest rate that will yield the grea test amount
OF revenue; third, that the maximum tax should
be imposed upon luxuries; fourth, that the low
est tax should be upon the necessaries of life;
fifth. that the duties should be so imposed as to
operate equally throughout the union, discrim-
mating neither for against any class sec
ton. 1t must not be forgotten that so great
we're the benefits to the people from the tariff
legislation have just mentioned that, in 1857,
representatives of all parties concurring, the
tariff was again reduced until the average
OF duties was 10 per cent. The decade and
half extending from the passage of the low tar
III law in 1916 to the beginning Of our civil war
has been truly called the golden period of
our history. The cost of the necessaries
OF life had reached the minimum and
az no lime in history it easier
for the wage Garner to support his family. The
dow
realized the benefit of low taxation A benefit
why? Simply for the reason that it lessened
the cost of food, OF clothing, of every article
that conduced to his comfort. Our manufacto-
ries did not languish. The fires did not go out
in our great hives of industry. The demand for
labor was not lessened, nor was its value de-
preciated
AS have shown, the average tariff tax at the
beginning of the civil war in 1861 but 10 per
cent To purchase munitions of war; to arm
and equip soidiera and meet all of the expenses
incident to the struggle required large sums of
money. Tariff taxes were largely increased
The Morrill, tariff bill was passed Our govern
ment was in the throes Of war. struggling for
its existence, and but little heed given by
the people to the fact that duties under the new
tarih law were not only highly protective to
manufacturers, but burdenSome to the people.
But this was not all By subsequent increase
by successive republican congresses the aver
rate of duties reached AZ per cent This was
the average rate of tariff taxes when the Nc
Rinley bill became the law.
Nor Is this all. The protected classes grow
ing year by year stronger and more powerful
with the protection afforded them, demanded
Of the Ffty-frst congress yet higher duties
AS infant Industries they had been for the
time content with moderate protection given
by Mr.. Clay. Later, they had demanded the
higher duties imposed by the Morrill, tariff and
that of later congresses. In $780, during the
first session Of the Fifty first congress, their
mand was in substance prohibitory tariff
The response to this demand was the Massage
The avowed object of this bill was to check i'm
portation Its purpose so to increase the rate
OF duties, as in many instances to exclude alb
solutely foreign goods from our markets, and
thus, by cutting off competiti enable the
home manufacturer, without let or hindrance,
to fx the price OF his wares In word, the
Mckinley law, by its prohibitory features, gave
Its benefciaries practical monopoly and
abled them in fact to levy additional tax
upon the consumer to the extent the duty has
been increased Was this legislation demanded
by the people? Was it in their interest? Was
1t not class Legislation OF the most odiouS char
acter-such legislation as enriches the few at
| the expense of the many? The American peo-
pie Enthusiastically set their seal of condemna-
ton upon this bill. Slowly but surely they
have become convinced that protection does
not protect them.
It is worse than idle to speak Of its benefits
to the American farmer What he demands is
both foreign and a home market for the prod
uce Of his farm 1t is moczery to tell him he
is protected against the corn and wheat prod
ucts of the world While he is compelled to
sell In the open markets Of the world he should
be allowed the poor privilege of buying what
his necessities require without paying high
tribute to the protected classes OF his own
country To the mechanic and laborer no less
than to the farmer protection has proved de-
fusion and snare In no instance has it opened
up 10 the farmer additional market for pound
of meat or a bushel of grain Has it in single
instance given to the mechanic or laborer in
creased wages? The present high tariff adds
largely to the cost of articles necessary to the
comfort of the wage Garner. How has he been
benefited? Has it increased his wagess Has ii
in any manner benefited his condition? Recent
events connected with the most highly protected
establishments of this country sadly attest the
fact that high protective tariff affords no pro-
lection to those who earn their bread by daily
toll It was never intended to benefit them
Long enough has the wage Garner been deluded
by the cry that high tariff means high wages
Tariffs have no effect upon wages. except to df-
minish their purchasing power. The higher the
tariff the less the purchasing power of the
wages
Wages are governed by the great law of sup
ply and demand II the claim Of the protection
list Is well founded, why have not wages In
creased, as tariffs have increased Why con-
slant reduction of wages In the most highly
protected establishments in the lands
To the toiler the Mckinley bill has kept the
word of promise to the ear, but broken ii to the
hope"
The democratic house Of representatives OF
the present congress has passed bill removing