Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1892-06-17

protective principle. On tho other
hand, tea and coffee are not success.
fully grown in the United States, aud
are therefore properly to DO placed on
tho free list. Sugar and some other
important articles are produced to
some extent in the United States, but
our past experience shows not nearly
sufficient quantities to meet tho de-
mands of our home consumption, and,
therefore, from the protectionist stand.
point, tho duties on these should be
much less than on iron and wool, il
indeed they do not 60 to the free list.
The opponents of protection insist
that our foreign trade should be free
from oil restrictions, save only what
is required by revenue considerations.
They contend that no discrimination
should be made to favor any business
or industry whatever. that tariff sche>
dulles should be adjusted so as to raise
the required revenue, either by tax
equally upon all kinds of importations,
or else 80 as to tax those articles
which will yield the required income
with the greatest ease and certainty.
1t is alleged that any discrimination
intended to encourage or protect any
one business, is taking money from
one class, or from the community at
large, for the benefit of another ia.
vored class. Free traders, therefore,
denounce protection as "legalized rob.
berry" Protectionists answer that
protection is not granted to favored
individuals or classes, but to certain
industrial pursuits to secure these
from undue foreign competition; that
these protected industries are open on
the same terms to all citizens Of the
country; that by reason of this free
competition at home capital is i'm
vested, our natural resources are de-
veloped and utilized, occupations
multiplied, skill is acquired, new pro>
cesses are invented, cost of production
is cheapened, wealth is multiplied,
and the whole community is benefited.
1t is pointed out that the community 10
composed of individuals, and that it is
impossible to benefit community but
by benefiting its individuals; that
every tax IS the taking of money from
some ones pocket, and every expendi.
ture is putting it into some ones
pocket, and hence to talk of q pro.
tective tariff as legalized robbery,
smacks more of anarchism and dema>
gogism than of craftsmanship.
The question at issue, therefore, is
not whether there shall or shall not
be taxes, nor whether there be a high
or low tariff; and he must be either
fool or knave who pretends this.
1t being granted that given income
is to be obtained by tariff, the ques-
ton is simply this: On what lines
shall the tariff schedule be adj
justed? Shall it be on tho line
of protection or of free trade?
Now, on this question there may be
very wide difference of opinion. And
it is with these differences that parties
and the people should concern them
selves. Ignoring individual or local
dissent, it is on this question that the
Republican and Democratic parties
divide on the tariff. Substantially
the Republican is u protectionist party,
and its tariffs are always framed on
the lines of protection. Substantially
the Democratic is free trade party,
and its tariffs are always framed on
the lines of free trade. This is a sim.
pie matter Of fact written in the bis.
tory Of TIE country, and he who
denies this is not dealing candidly
with the facts of our historv