The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-11-12
SEATTLE. SATURDAY,, NOV. IL.
HOW WILL THE DEMOCRATS RE-
FORM THE TARIFF?


revenue reform? In 1888 the Democracy
presented the so-called Mills bill. Was
that revenue reform bill? The Mills
bill proposed to give the manufacturers
free wool, but it did not give the people
clothing free from the burden of protect
i've duty, and to be fair tariff reform bill,
II protection lie to be taken from the wool
grower it should also be taken from the
manufacturer
If protection is to be retained at all, who
ere in most need Of 1t, the wool growers
of the country or the rich manufacturers,
but under the Mills bill the manufacturers
would be better off than under the McKin-
ley act, for they would have raw material
free Of duty and their product still pro-
tected against competition. If wool is to
be denied protection sugar should be de-
MED protection, too, but under the Mills
bill protection, which was denied a very
large class. like wool growers, was granted
to very small class. like sugar planters
and wooden manufacturers. This Mills
bill. which Cleveland Endorsed in 1855 and
in his recent letter of acceptance, and
which David B. Hill Endorsed in his recent
Campaign speeches, was not tariff reform,
but the bodest sort of class legislation; it
was sectional. Southern tariff under the
mask Of revenue reform.
When the Republican party has been in
power it has revised and reduced the
tariff. 1t has controlled the house but
two terms since 1874; in 1Ssl-S3, and in
18S9-9I In 1883 IL passed reduction bill
and in 1890 it passed the Mckinley bill,
which abolished the purely revenue duty
on sugar, relieving the people of $50 co.,
600 OF annual taxes. The average per-
centage OF tariff duties under the McKin-
ley law, covering everything, is only q
per cent, which Is lower than the "taxa-
ton" under any previous tariff law since
the war. II IL lower than the average rate
even under the Mills bill The average
percentage Of tariff duties under the Nc
Kinley Law il Is per cent lower than the
average rate which prevailed under the
tariff Of 1867.
The assertion that the present rates are
higher than war taxes" was gross cam.
paign lie Everybody who will turn to the
political record viii see that the protective
tariffs of ls2+1s2s-1s42. all peace tariffs,
were far higher and more burdensome
than the present tariff. Under the Nc
kinley law IS per cent. or more than one
half. Of all our imports come in free of
duty. This 10 larger proportion than
under any former tariff
n ~ =.
some Of all which have concerned the
present generation. The Republican
party, which has been in power in the
house but twice in the last eighteen years,
has not hesitated to revise and reduce the
tariff burdens of the people. On the other
controlled the house, where such Iegis-
lation must originate. for fourteen out of
eighteen years. has never passed a bill to
reduce the tariff with the exception of the
Mills bill, which, a. We have shown, was
gross class legislation and q sectional
tariff. As long as the Republican party
was in power it continued to revise and
reduce the tariff to the extent of prevent
ing surplus revenue. but the Democratic
house has never passed any measure of
tariff reform save the inequitable Mills
bill, which provided for free wool, taxed
sugar and protected wooden goods. The
Democratic house at the last session of
congress howled about the Mckinley &C t.
but never repealed it; they were content
20 try and mutilate it in the line of the
Mills bill.
In the Fifty-third congress the Dernoc.
racy will have a very large majority in the
house and a working majority in the SEN
ate, and yet it is by no means certain that
they will give US a tariff for revenue only
according 10 the promise of the Chicago
platform. David 3. Hill and all the or
stors of the psrty in the Empire state de-
clessa themselves protectionists OF the
Ti.aen and Randall school, and Cleveland,
N his letter of acceptance. did not go
farther than 10 say tina; he favored free
raw materials. Whether the Democracy
enacts q radical tariff for revenue only or
a ouc-sijoi protection measure like the
Mills bill will depend upon the South. If
the South insists on pushing its victory
10 the extreme. We shall have tariff for
revenue only. which is really the desire of
the South, but If the counsels of David B.
Hill prevail We are not likely TO get more
than the Mills bill. which if once enacted
will be sure to ultimately make the whole
West threaten to turn free traders. In
that event the Eastern manufacturers and
importers will have to choose whether
they will be ruined by free goods or hasten
10 run back TO protection for both raw ma
teriai aud finished goods: protection for
both producer and manufacturer.
Under the Mills bill the producers are
sure 10 become free traders Protection
must be equal or II must be wholly re-
jected. II the principles Of the Mckinley
act are to be abandoned. there can be no
long hslt short of a tariff for revenue only.
under which no duty will Ice lad on any
Kind of goods imported from abroad ex-
cept wines. liquors, tobacco and Injuries
used exclusively by the rich. Ordinary
goods OF AL descriptions wi!I b admitted