The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-11-14
CAN HE GO sLOWf


advisable to Ego slow" in the matter Of
"tariff reform" legislation. No doubt Mr..
Cleveland and his friends among the rich
manufacturers and importers at the East
would like to Ego slow" they would like
to enact legislation in line with the Mills
bill, which stood for tree wool, taxed sugar
and protected wooden goods, but the ques-
ton whether tariff legislation will 'go
slow" or not cannot be settled by Mr..
Cleveland and the rich importers and
manufacturers Of the East; it will be set
tied by the Democratic producers of the
South and West, and they will not be
likely to stop short Of free trade.
The South under tariff for revenue only
would get the sugar duty, purely reve-
nue. tax, restored, and that would delight
louisiana The chief product of the
Souihis cotton, which is free of duty to-
day. and the South not only produces cot
ton in greater quantities than any other
country, but produces the cheapest cotton
in the world, because the Southern pro-
Queer has full control over his negro la
Dor and makes that labor actually cheaper
to him than it was under slavery. The
South wanted tariff for revenue only un.
der slave labor. and it wants a tariff for
revenue only today under cheap negro
labor.
In order to capture the presidency the
South was willing in 1888 to offer the man.
ufacturers of New York and New England
tho NiIla hill which uae on afFnrt IF The
Cleveland administration to strip the
West Of protection and yet continue pro.
lection to the East and South. This Mills
bill was bride held out to the East in
1883. The South under this bill was to be
favored by continued protection of its pro-
ducts. sugar, rice and tobacco; the East
was to have protection for its manufac
features, but protection was to be with
drawn from the leading products of the
West. This was an unjust, sectional tariff
scheme, but it carried Connecticut anc
| New Jersey. and carried New YORK. city
by an increased majority. and came very
| near success in 1885
The Cleveland Democracy at Chicago
intended to renew this bribe to the Eas
in its platform; it intended to strip tn,
! West of protection and continue protec
ton to the East, but the free traders il
the convention replaced this plank with
declaration for tariff for revenue only
David B. Hill threw over this plank ant
| declared for "a tariff for revenue with in
| cidental protection" In his Brooklyn
speech Hill said:
| The tariff upon manufactured articles should
Is a general rule be larger where similar article
are produced In this country than where the
! are not
The tariff imposed upon all manufacture
articles tother than those which Tor good reason
| are placed the free lis,) should equal tn
| difference between the rate Of wages paid In thi
| and foreign countries, far as labor ente.
into the cost OF their production.
In maintaining the duties which must niece,
| ssrily be collected, we would discriminate 1
favor Of American labor and American indus
| tries
This Is the essence Of protection and O
this declaration of faith by Hill you coul
rest even the Mckinley tariff In ever
one of his speeches in New York Hi
frankly declared himself a protectionist
he declared that he was perfectly wiliin
that Incidental protection" should prt
tect even 10 the extent OF preventin
foreign competition. Mr.. Hill also in
dorsed the Mills bills and the Democrat
platform OF lSSisS but Watterson. Ne.
and Wilson, of West Virginia, say tha
the platform of ISSS was q makeshift, 70
like Carlisle. Hurd and Mills, they are a.
free traders
Mr.. Hill, in his effort TO prove that tn
| Chicago platform, which declared for
tariff for revenue only. implied incident:
protection, either did not know or pr
tended he did not know that free trade
means and is constantly used 30 mes
| uon-protectlou, simply 'tariff for re-
enue only" without even incidental Pr
lection" Prof. Sumner. a weli-know
Democratic politica! economist, says {
the term "free trade"
! II does no. mean thu abolition OF cusso
houses. nor does Il mean the substitution Of 4
| rect ior indirect taxation. as a few Ameries
| disciples Of the school have supposed.
| The customs duties levied by England, Wit
| very few RECEPTIONS. are not inconsistent vii
her professions OF being q country which ,
nsves ia ige0 trade
so when David b. Hill insisted th'
tariff for revenue only did not mean airs
trade" but implied ''incidental prote
,ion;" when Grover Cleveland spoke
impossible free trade" they were bot
talking .through their hats" and the
both knew that tariff for revenue only
4 a,ts 30 EA.