Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1892-10-31
HOW PROTECTION AFFECTS
WAGES.
Republicans Have Steadily Reduced
Taxes Since 1870.
The Tasis Case Sunnsrized b. The Attest
Authority On the Subject IN cssssess-
Rr H.x yyrses W. AIpaica.

Authority On The Subject IN cssssess-
BIZ Hos. NgI~es W. AIpgicH.
iiaitesi states senator from Rhote Island.
The paramount qnession which she people
| vii decide On November > Is whether tney
shall continue sle protective policy when
/ ha. broeght TO them such magnificent re-
.alts in the generation Iaai Is past or ~nethef
rsses will try a policy which has been re-
jeeted By every CIVILIZED ami eoniiiefe'ai
nafion With ose notable exception
! The election Of q Democratic president
thu. time means tl,.. election Of Democratic
senate anil Democratic House OF k"pre-
.enratige.. and the uncertainty aud anres,
xlirh will easue from the 10Th of Noserl-
bcr i, the first MONDAY OF December. 1888,
| when the new Congress meets. would be
almost a. disastrous temporarily TO the eusi-
ues. Of the country a. tie revolution in our
tariff system 10 which the Democratic party
IL committed.
/ The questions Of the personality Of eandi-
date. auA the success Of political parties
| both sink into in.ignifeanee wh@n We con-
! slider the injurious results to business inter
/ est. hkeiv 10 follow Democratic success.
Fortunately the yisws and doctrines Of the
I Democratic party are clearly AMI distinctly
| .et forth in the platform which was delib-
! @rately adopted after an exciting discussion
/ bv the Chicago convention. and the Demo
crats who attacked protective duties as
unconstitutional ami who carried the day
( then, will ~ surely conquer tile eonserVa-
/ tive minority ia Congress if the party is
| successful 1T the polls.
/ The removal of protective dntiss means
| free trade for American interests, AMI The
/ imposition of duties for revenue only would
I have the same effect Pruteciionlsts are IN
1 favor of gevying duties that shall equalize
/ the conditions between our own and com
/ netting countries IN the cost of production.
/ This means protection To American labor.
! II /. no, a policy of exclusion or probibi-
ton. It i a policy Of discrimination and
I expansion.
/ Now, what are revenue duties: The
+ best definition | know of--one which has
4 withstood Democratic and Republican crit
! ici.m alike for nearly fifty years, is that
given by Secretary Walker in his eeiebra-
! ted report of 1915. That report was the
| foundation Of the low tariff legislation of
/ 1916 and OF the still lower tariff of 1897.
which caused a bankrupt treasury and
| brought calamity to the country. Secretary
Walker said that in revenue tariff no duty
! should he levied under any circumstances
higher than the lowest rate that would pro-
duce the highest amount of revenue.
| This means the greatest possible amount OF
| importaiions of all competitive manufac-
| tured goods, il means the absolute surren-
| der of the American market to the foreign
| manufacturer.
! This definition of revenue duty ex-
cludes any idea of protection. Ii has been
concurred in by all the leading free traders
and tariff reformers of the [ nited States.
Mr.. David a Wells says; The protec-
| tive system is opposed TO the revenue sys-
/ TEN because the government collects the
| revenue on what comes in, while protection
/ is secured to the extent to which commodi-
ties are kept out" Revenue and protection
are entirely exclusive of each other and can
/ never overlap one another" says Professor
/ Sumner of Yale.
The opinion so frequently expressed in
/ Democratic newspapers that IA revenue duty,
/ to the extent of the rates it imposes gives
protection TO the American producer, Is
/ falaCous. \ duty, whether high or low
that equalizes the conditions between the
( American and foreign produce, is pro-
tective duty 1t makes no difference
whether it is so accidently, incidentally or
/ Intentionally. A duty that falls short of
/ this Gas a revenue duty always wild affords
/ no more protection than the absence of all
duties. TO illustrate If it costs seventy
( five cents to produce an article In the nted
States aud fifty cents in England, and these
conditions remain constant a duty of twenty
cents gives the American market TO the
English manufacturer, because he can
always produce and sell his product for five
; cents less than his American competitor
/ If, BY reason of the change of conditions,
! a revenue duty becomes accidentally pro-
tcctive. II becomes at once the duty of Con
gress, following the doctrine laid down by
Secretary Walker and the Chicago platform
of 1892 to reduce that duty to a revenue
standard.
/ think il will be seen from this that "A
purely revenue duty never can be protec-
tive. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jack
son, who maintained that our own people
should he defended sgainst the products of
/ cheaper foreign labor, were strict protec-
tionists and occupied the same position held
by the Republican party today
/ Democrats claim that Republicans have
constantly increased tariff rates and that
the act of 1890 imposes higher duties than
were levied by any of the acts which pre-
coded it.
Nothing could be more misleading or
more false than this The orators and news
papers which make this statement either
have little know ledge of the industrial his
tory of the country or they wish to keep
tho truth from their hearers and readers.
Four important reductions of our tariff have
taken place since 1870; namely by the acts
of 1870, 1872, l-S2 and 1890. BY the pro-
visions of the act of July II, 1870, there
were added to the free list ~ dutiabic artl-
cles The rates of duty were reduced upon
fortv-nine other articles. By the act OF
June Is. 1872, 2l3 items were added to the
free list. and duties were lowered on forty
two articles. BY the act of March ,. lss3,
a further addition of seyentv-two articles
was made to the free list. and rates
were reduced on ~ others
embracing every schedule and
almost every article on the dutiable list
The actual percentage of reduction made
in rates by that act was 3s IL per cent.
Tariff reformers claim that the Republican
tariff commission of lss3 promised to re-
duce rates 20 to - per cent, and that a
Republican Congress failed to keep this
promise hut instead of reduction of 20 to
- per cent. much greater reduction was
made. TO demonstrate the magnitude of
these several reductions it is only necessary
for me to say that if the rates of duty I'M
posed prior to 1870 had been collected on
the lmportations of 1887 the amount of du-
ties collected in the latter year would have
been $50 900 900, or Sl29 900 600 more
than were actually collected at our custom
houses.
BY the act of ls9o the rate of duty col
lccted on all imports in 1891, dutiable and
free. was a fraction over 2 per cent. if up
on these importations the war tariff rates
had been levied the average rate would
have been ) per cent. of their value.
Although the Re publican party of today
steatlfastly maintains the policy of the
great founders of the government, with the
same intent and with the same happy result,
need not add that widely different con-
ii,ions in 1892 make the protection of
our manufacturers and workingmeu a
much more difficult task now than in
! l1s9. when Washington signed the
first protective tariff act. vt that time
we had no steam communication with
Europe we had no ocean telegraph: we
hal none of the facilities of transportation
which we have now. An order sent abroad
by an American merchant TO an English
manufacturer required from four to six
/ ,,o,,hs bafara IN eouiI hp fillpi The cost