Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-02-11
THE FOUNTAIN HEAD
Of All Tariff Reform, David A.
Wells, Writes
TO CHAIRMAN SPRINGER
Of the Ways and Means Committee, hdOrs-
ing HilPs Plan
OF Attacking the Mckinley Tariff Detail
Wells is the Great Authority Quoted
by the Democrats-His
Letter in Full.
Annrorsd b, the Great EeonomIst.

David A. Wells OF Connecticut is known
everywhere as the father OF tariff reform
His works and essays have served for years
US the chief arguments of the Democratic
side against protectionism. The letter writ
ten BY him to Chairman Springer APPROX
ing the Crisp-G oFnau-Hill plan of attacking
the tariff in detail is generally regarded as
conclusive proof of the wisdom Of the ma
jority. 1t throws decisive damper on the
movement Of Mr.. Mills to arouse opposition
among Democrats to the action of the ways
and means committee. The letter runs as
follows:
"NoRwIcH, CONN, Feb. 1, 1892.
lily Dear Mr.. Springer.
l have given considerable thought TO your
question as to the best method of procuring
tariff reform by legislation, and ind myself
moro and more inclined TO the opinion that
even If the Democratic party was in full
control of both branches of congress
and of the executive, the wisest
what might be termed tentative rather than
radical To frame new tariff bill wisely
embodying reform ideas-even If the plan
OF the Walker tariff of 1916 Is adopted as a
structural model-wil require much time,
great labor and almost superhuman wisdom.
The best experts can rarely tell wherein
our complicated industrial and commercial
organization, the final incidence OF
any tax, will fail No bill can
be framed that viii not contain
lncOD2fulLlGS, u68pGQlcuCiOS, GIFOTo anu
perhaps absurditieS, which only time and
experience will reveal In that hot parti-
san political discussion that will follow
such bill, all these weak points will be
picked out exaggerated and used to obscure
more important issues and confuse the
public. Suppose, for example, the pro-
posed bill puts works Of art, paintings and
statuary, not ordinary merchandise, on the
free list, as would be desirable The af'gu-
ment in favor of such legislation is that
such produce do not need the protection of
any tariff that all civilized countries make
a point of encouraging such importations
acd Of not restricting Them and that their
presence in this country develops ar
tistic tastes among our people. which in
turn creates demand for artistic products
and so calls into existence new domestic in
dustries, employing highly skilled labor at
high wages, both of men and women. But
how much would this plea avail before the
great mass in the agricultural districts
with a political opponents counter asser-
tions that opictures and statuary were
bought only by the rich as pure objects of
luxury and are therefore emlnently fit sub
iects of taxation. Can we afford to give
the enemy any advantages in discussion or
opportunities for befogging the real issues!
Again with a complete tariff bill the
friends of reform would have to meet the
entire force of the protectioniStS, active and
compact through the attraction of further
opportunity for public plumber. On tho
other hand, under the protective plan, that
is of comparatively few issues, the tend
ency of those interests not Immediately
affected would DE to sluggishness and in
difference. / would ask your attention to u
matter Of historical experience, full of sug-
gestlon, which thus far seems to have been
entirely overlooked, and that is, that Sir
Robert Peel in dealing with exactly the
same problem as now confronts our tariff
legislators, but from British standpoint,
udnnrad thu fanfati5ra method and 0XvPd all
of his great success to the fact that he
did adopt it. At the time MIR. Peel
took Office, in 1871, the British tariff was in
every feature extremely protective, or bet
ter extremely restrictive on British foreign
commerce, as it had been Tor centuries.
It was more complicated and taxed n greater
number of articles than the Mckinley bill.
The first measure or bill for tariff reform
introduced by him in 1912 was very con-
sentative ana proposed little moro than
the removal Of duties from crude materials
and essential to manufacture, with view
OF cheapening the cost OF manufacture to
British manufacturers, and has since been
characterized in history as an elabor-
ate attempt to foster trade by reduc-
ing import duties, at the same time
continuing protection. The measures en-
countered the most violent opposition
Precisely the same arguments were brought
forward IL favor OF the continuance of the
Mckinley tariff as were advanced in sup
port of the then existing British tariff law.
The same predictions Of impending disaster
to domestic industries as are now made
were showered upon parliament and the
public. The bill proposed by Sir Robert
Peel became law. No further important
tariff legislation was proposed until 1915,
but in the three preceding years the bene-
fetal influence OF the tariff reductions of
1872 had become so manifest in reYiving in
dustry and commerce, that Mr.. Peel's
chief opponents in the former
year became his chief supporters in the
latter and voiced q general public sentiment
in demanding further and greater reforms.
a bill was accordingly introduced and
passed in 1915 removing or reducing the
duties on large additional number of arti-
Giles, but still maintaining protective duties
both upon manufactured articles and agri-
cultural products and IL was not until 1916
that Sir Robert Peel directly attacked the
protectionist system by introducing and
passing the bill which repealed the corn
laws and greatly reduced or entirely re-
moved the duties on manufactured prod
ucts.
After this, although Sir Robert Peel did
not remain in Office, his policy was con-
tinued, but it was not until 1852 when the
last relic OF the British navigation laws
were swept from the statute book, that the
policy OF Great Britain became wholly an
tagouistic TO the maintenance and advance |
ment Of any laws restrictive to freedom
Of exchange or the imposition of
taxes for any other purpose than reve-
nue.. From this brief review of British
experience it is clear that If Sir Robert |
Peel, in 1872, had attempted TO re-
form the British tariff as a whole and |
adopted any course other than the tenta-
tive one he would not have been success
ful And venture to predict that if we /
now adopt the same policy history, on a |
grander scale, isiH repeat itself. Every |
reIaxation Of the existing restriction on |
trade will increase srade, and the blessing
Of freedom and Of exemption from all IN
necessary taxation will be sounded by the
masses of our people.
By adopting the tentative method and /
sending to the senate few simple bills en-
acted by the house-biIls removing duties
on wool. salt, coal, lumber, tin plate and
the lke-the Democratic party viii define
and formulate the plan and scope on
which tariff debate in the coming presi-
dental contest shall be conducted Every
senator who votes in opposition TO the re-
Tnoyal Of taxation from such articles as
above specified. puts himself at once on the
defensive, and in position sure TO be po-
lltically uncomfortable. Tia masses have
bean aaa prebahly always viii be slow