The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-16
SEATTLE. SATURDAY, APRIL IS.
THE HISTORY OF PROTECTION.

The protective movement in this coun-
Try nominaily dates back to 1850, when
Alexander Hamilton framed our first
tariff, but the first strong popular move
ment for protection began about 1888 on
the heels Of great collapse in the prices
of land and agricultural products, which
had been much inflated from 1915 to 1918.
This movement for protection was earn
estly supported by Thomas Jefferson in
public letters and by John C. Calhoun,
who afterwards, as the champion of slave
ocracy, became free trader. The protection
states from 1918 to 1894 were New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Ken
states and wanted protection for the
manufactures that meant to them home
market, and for their own products, wool,
hemp and fax and for wheat and corn in
shape of higher duties on rum and brandy,
which they considered competed with
spirits made from home grown grain, and
in this conviction a duty on molasses was
natural supplement to that on rum.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey had al
ready commenced to produce iron, and
asked for its protection. New England
opposed these demands, because she was
then engaged in foreign trade and ship
ping. She did not want wool taxed, for
it was the raw material of her rapidly
growing manufactures she did not want
iron, hemp or fax taxed. because they
were used by her in building and equip
ping ships; she did not want rum and
molasses taxed, because she imported mo-
lasses from the West Indies in exchange
for fish, provisions and lumber, and used
the molasses to make rum.
Between 1920 and 1880 New England's
manufactures grew enormously, and Con-
necticut and Rhode Island became protec-
tive states. By this time Calhoun was
opposed to the protective system. for he
raw that under slavery manufactures
would not flourish and that the South must
buy her goods of the North or of Eu-
rope. Nevertheless, in 1924 Clay, Adams,
Jackson and Crawford were all declared
advocates of protection. The protective
tariff of 1924 was supported by the Middle
uhO NoStcTH the OOulu WAS III OPP
position and New England divided.
The protective tariff of 1923 was opposed
by the South, but Jackson supported it as
he had that of 1924. The Middle and
Western states voted almost unanimously
for this protective tariff of 1923. but
twenty-three out of thirty-nine members
from New England voted against it. The
Senate passed the bill by vote of 26 to 81.
The Southern senators, except two from
Kentucky and one each from Tennessee
and Louisiana, voted against it. The sem
ators from the Middle and Western states
voted for it. Six from New England, in
Guiding Webster, voted for it, and five
against it, This protective tariff of 1928
placed duty of 45 per cent. ad valorem
on coarse woolens and a heavy duty on
coarse wool; high duty on hemp, aduty
of 10 cents a gallon on molasses and
heavy duty on iron and flax. This tariff
was not agreeable to New England, but
she accepted it for political reasons"
The tariff was in 1888 what it is today, a
question of warning sectional interests,
although the South since that day by
losing slavery and becoming a manufact-
uring as well as an agricultural people, is
more fayoraby disposed in spots to
protection, while at the West and in New
England the gradual shifting and read
justment of industries makes singular
changes in the attitude of the various
states towards the tariff. The Mckinley
tariff is the best tariff We ever had, because
Il is, as an expression of the philosophy of
protection, an eminently fair tariff, since
1t protects both agriculture and manu-
features; protects both the raw material
and the finished goods.
For this reason the Mckinley tariff will
stand so long as protection stands. The
only alternative Is free trade, and outside
of Mills, OF Texas, and his fat pupil. Cleve-
land, no men Of any public note in either
party believe in free trade. The absurd
Democratic platform of 1883, which stood
Cor free wool and taxed sugar, can never
hope to supplant fair tariff like the Nc
Kinley act. The Democrats lost Rhode
Island the other day on the tariff issue,
because the Democratic workingmen in
the city of Providence are bitterly opposed
70 Cleveland and Mills assault upon the
principle of reasonable protection for
American industry and labor.
In November next there will be an inn
nense detection in the Democratic vote in
Hartford, New Haven and the Democratic
cities Of New York and New Jersey, If the
Eills-Clevelaud philosophy Of tariff re-
form is repeated in the National Demo-
cratic platform for iSa2. The American
nottingham will not vote for free trade
sud its inevitable concomitant. cheap
labor The defeat of the Democracy in
nhode Island was due 10 the detection Of
protectionist Democrats. The Demo
gratis by the extension of the fran
chise in Rhode Island hsve gained
ib.aoo new voters in Rhode Island since
lass; they have carried the state and con-
xressiouai elections for three years, and
che moment that Grover Cleveland
mounted the Rhode Island stump and be-
gan 10 talk free wool the Democracy were
doomed to defeat, and their breakdown
comes IN the ranks of the Democratic
vorkingmen, who believe in protection