The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1892-08-28

| enable the home manufacturer without lei
or hindrance to fix the price OF his wares
In word, the Mckinley law, by It's pro
hibitory features gave its beneiciaries &
practical monopoly, and enabled them il
fact to levy an additional tax upon the
| consumer, to the extent that the duty hac
been increased. Was this legislation de-
manded by the people? Was it in their in
terest? Was it not class legislation of the
most odious character-such legislation as
enriches the few at the expense OF the
| many? The American people unmistaka-
bly, set their seal of condemnation upon
this bill. Slowly but surely they have be,
come convinced that protection does not
| protect them.
at is worse than idle to speak of its
benefits to the American farmer. what
| he demands is both foreign anc home
market for the products of his farm. !t is
mockery to tell him be is protected against
/ the corn and wheat products OF the oId
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 nlgn
| tribute to the protected classes OF his own
country. TO the mechanic and Ia6orer no
| less than to the farmer protection has
proved delusion and snare. In no In
stance has it opened up to the farmer ''ad-
ditional markets for pound OF meat or a
bushel of grain Has it IN single in
stances given to the mechanic or laborer
increased wages? The present high tariff
adds largely to the cost of articles necessary
to the comfort of the wage Garner? how
has be been benefited Has IL
increased his wages? Has it in any man
ner benefited his condition Recent events
connected with the most highly protected
establishments of this country sadly at
test the fact that high protective tarlH
affords no protection to those who earn
their bread by daily toll. lt was never IN
tended to benefit them. Long enough has
the wage-earper been delUded by che cry
that high tariff means high wages. Tariffs
have no effects upon wages, except TO
diminish their purchasing power: The
higher the tariff the less the purchasing
power of wages. Wages are governed by
the great law of supply and demand. II
the claim of the protectlonlst IS Wen
founded, why have not wages Increased,
as tariffs have increased? Why constant
reduction of wages in the most highly pro-
tected establishments in the land? 10 the
toiler the Mckinley bill has kept the.word
of promise TO the ear, but broken 1t to the
hope
II have shown that instead of a surplus
Of little less than one hundred million
dollars left by the Cleveland admlnIstra-
ton, the treasury is now confronted by
bankruptcy. This is the result in part of
IDe TeChleSS eAUEHNdSdLC0 Vi 4GCpOOliSet1
congress. 1t is in large measure the
necessary result of the Mckinley tariff:
By that bill the treasury was deprived OF
fifty millions OF revenue by repeating the
sugar tax; but in order to compensate the
sugar grower for this loss of protection at
forded him, ten millions of dollars annu-
ally, for fifteen years, are to be pald MIN
out of the treasury as bounty. The con-
sumer is to be deluded into the belief that
l., = = bo i,io Of hanafitG nnhpr
the free sugar clause of this bill, while
under another section Of the same bill
SO 600, 600 are to be taken annually from
the pockets of the taxpayers and given to
the sugar growers. In addition to this,
whatever benefit might come TO the con-
sumer by the free sugar clause OF the bill
is overbalanced many fold by the largely
increased cost of woolen goods and OF all
other neceSsaries of life. The repeal OF the
sugar tax was simply intended to reconcile
the consumer TO the still greater taxes laid
upon him. Heretofore the persistent claim
of the protectionist has been that tariff
taxes are not paid by the consumer. This
clam is now abandoned. The advocates
of the Mckinley law concede the tax upon
sugar to have been paid by the consumer.
Else, why take so much credit to tneni-
selves for removing it? Is there not danger
that the consumer may inquire, If remov-
ing the tariff tax upon sugar lessons It's
cost why should not the same blessed re-
suit follow reduction of tariff taxes upon
all OF the other necessarie5 OF lifeT
tine Democratic house of representa-
tives of the present congress has passed
bill removing the increased duty imposed
by the Mckinley bill upon tin plate and
providing that within few years it shall
20 upon the free list. It has also passed
the free wool and cheap clothing bill, by
which wool is admitted free Of duty, and u
large reduction sought to be effected in
the tariff upon woOlen goods of all de-
scrptions. 1t has also removed the tariff
upon binding twine. But for the hostility
of a Republican senate these measures, SO
just, so beneficial TO the people, would now
be upon our statute books. Our present
tariff laws need careful revision. Their
glaring Inconsistencies should be correct
ed. II is to the interest of manufacturer
and consumer alike that IN the main raw
material be admitted free of duty. Work
ing the raw material into the finished pro-
duct would give employment to our skilled
workman. The reduction Of tariff taxes
to the minimum upon the necessaries of
life is important to all of our people; it
would prove of inestimable value TO the
millions who earn their bread by daily
toll.
My fellow citizens to you the tariff is the
all-lmportant question. The question is
DOU now muCn OIL your earnings Sndli DS
given TO the support of the government,
but how much shall under the form of law
be seized by the favored-the protective
classes
The contest upon which we have now
entered is of deep significance to the
American people. Shal! kign tariff. con-
tinually increasing with the demands of
the protected Class, be the settled policy of
our government, or shall there be relief to
the people from the burdens Of unjust
taxatiou?"