The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-09-03

lutely foreign goods from our markets
and thus by cutting off competition, en-
able the home manufacturer without lie
or hindrance to fix the price Of his wares
In a word, the Mckinley law, by it's pro
hibitory features, gave its benefciaries
practical monopoly, and enabled them il
fact to levy an additional tax upon tn
consumer, to the extent the duty hat
been increased. Was this legislation de
manded by the people? Was it in thei
interest? Was it not class legislation o
the most odious character-such legisla
ton as enriches the few at the expense
of the many? The American people un
~mistakably set their seal of condemna
ton upon this bill. Slowly but surely
they have become convinced that PRO
lection does not protect" them.
Who is Protected?
1t is worse than idle to speak of it,
benefits to the American farmer. What
he demands is both a foreign and a home
market for the products of his farm. II
is mockery to tell him he is protected
against the corn and wheat products Of
the world. While he is compelled to sell
in the open markets of the world, he
should be allowed the poor privilege OF
buying what his necessities require with.
out paying high tribute to the protected
classes of his own country. To the
mechanic and laborer no less than to the
farmer protection has proved a delusion
and a snare. In no instance has it opened
up to the farmer additional market for
a pound of meat OF a bushel of grain
Has it in a single instance given to the
mechanic or laborer increased wages?
The present high tariff adds largely to
the cost of articles necessary to the com
fort of the wage T. How has he
been benefited? Has it increased his
wages? Has it in any manner benefited
his condition: Recent events connected
with the mo t highly protected estab-
lishment of this country sadly attest the
fact that a high protective tariff affords
no protection to those who earn their
bread by daily toll. IT was never in
tended 10 benefit them. Long enough
has the wage-earner been deluded by the
cry that high tariff mean high wages.
Tariffs have no effects upon wages, ex-
cept to diminish their purchasing power.
The higher the tariff the less the pur-
chasing power of the wages. Wages are
governed by the great law of supply and
demand. If the claim of the protection
list is well founded, why have not wages
increased, as tariffs have increased:
Why constant reduction of wages in the
most highly protected establish ments in
the land:
To the toiler the Mckinley bill has
''kept the word of promise to the EAR,
but broken it to the hope"
In his great speech against TIE high
tariff corn laws in the British parliament
in 1913, the matchless orator, Daniel
O'Connell, said: "But what is the mean
ing of protection: 1t means an addition
al sixpence for each loaf: that is the
Irish of il. If he had not the protection
the loaf would sell for a shilling; but if
he has protection it will sell for one-and-
sixpence. Protection is the English for
siXpence. and what is more, it is the
for an eXtorted sixpence. The
real meaning Of protection, therefore. is
robbeIy-robbery of the poor by the
rich"
Free Sugar.
/ have shown that instead of a surplus
Of little less than one hundred million
dollars left by the Cleveland admins
the treasury is now confronted
by bankruptcy. This is the result in
part of the reckless extravaganza of a
congress. 1t is in a large
measure the necessary result of the
Mckinley tariff. By that bill the treas
ury was deprived of fifty millions of
revenue by repeating the sugar tax; but
N order to compensate the sugar grower
Tor this loss of the protection" afforded
him, ten millions of dollars annually, for
fifteen years, are to be paid him out of
the treasury as a bounty. The consumer
IS to be deluded into the belief that he
IS the recipient of great benefits under
the free sugar clause of this bill, while
under another section of the same bill
millions dollars are to be taken an
lnally from the pockets of the tax-pay-
ers and given to the sugar growers. In
to this, whatever benefit might
come to the by the free sugar
of the bill is balanced many
fold by the largely increased cost of
goods and of all other necessaries
life. The repeal of the sugar tax was
intended to reconcile the consum-
er to the still greater taxes land upon
him. Heretofore. the persistent claim
Of the protectionist has been that tariff
are not paid by the consumer This
is now abandoned. The advocates
Of the Mckinley law concede the tax
upon sugar to have been paid by the
consumer. Else, why take SO much
to themselves for removing it! Is
there not danger that the consumer may
IF removing the tariff tax upon
lessons it's cost, why
would not the same blessed result
a reduction of tariff taxes upon
of the other necessaries of life?"
Tariff Reform.
The democratic house of representa-
ives of the present congress has passed
4 bill removing the increased duty i'm
posed by the Mckinley bill upon tin
plate and providing that within a few
years it shall go upon the free list. 1t
has also passed the free wool and cheap
bill, by which wool is admitted
free of duty and a large reduction sought
to be effected in Il e tariff upon wooden
goods. 1t has removed the tariff on