The record-union., 1892-10-19

ne republican makes the competing
foreign product bear the burden OF taxa
lIoh ana, except as to luxuries, he per-
mits the non-competing product to come
in free of duty.
I lie gives you tea, coffee, drugs, etc.,
uIltaAeu: Ihe Democrat puts wool on
tne 1ree llst-an article In direct competi-
tlon with an important home industry.
Inc TWO systems are irreconcilable.
one or the other must fall. Both cannot
stand
Tariff for revenue only ignores the
principle of protection.
Now, l do not hold that free trade, such
as exists in England-or tariff for revenue
only-may not, under certain conditions,
and in other countries, be wise policy
But claim that such conditions do not
exist in this country at this time. This
Is precisely where the two parties divide
line Democrats claiming that we are
deny.
The laws of Great Britain were once
hlgn!y protective, and so continued to
within recent history. They went SO
lar as to make it crime to import certain
articles.
As late as 1912 the custom tariff num-
Dered 200 articles, now only nineteen.
| Ihelr custom revenues come almost en-
tlrely from spirits, tobacco, tea, coffee and
fruits.
But there is not a single colony of
Great Britain that has not adopted our
policy OF protective tariff, and / know of
no country, except England, where free
| trade IS an accepted Government policy.
REPUBLICAN POLICIES EXAMINED.
Practical craftsmanship never worries
itself about the maxims of theorists.
| That which in a period of years has been
found to promote the general welfare
may be accepted as sound policy, how
ever much it may appear to conflict with
conventional rules of political economy.
know of no surer way TO bring the Re-
publican policies to the highest test than
to examine the result of those policies. If
they had been in operation only four
years the result would have small signifi-
canoe: if ten years, it would be stronger
evidence; II twenty years, still stronger.
Alter thlrty-tWo years OF practical ap-
pl1cation we ought to be able to rest with
some security upon the lessons they
teach.
The Democratic party denounce these
policies "as fraud, a robbery of the
great majority of the American people,;
and the Mckinley tariff law is character
lied 'as the eliminating atrocity of class
legislation" They deny that there has
been an increase of prosperity to the
country since that tariff went into opera
tion,' and they, promise its repeal as
one of the beneicent results that will fol-
low the action of the people in intrusting
power to the Democratic party
This is the Indictment which you, fell
low-citizens, are to try. This is the ar
raignment of the party whose great lead
ers you have trusted for nearly thirty
years. Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, Lo-
gan, Blaine, Harrison, and a mighty
host of statesmen. living and
dead, whose splendid services
are written upon the brightest pages of
American history. These men and their
loyal followers are charged in the most
solemn manner with having instituted
system Of fraud, a robbery of the great
majority of the American people.
Let us examine the evidence. Let US
see if Republican protection is q fraud
Let us see if it has robbed the American
people. Let US examine into the work
ings of the eliminating atrocity-the
Mckinley bill.
WAR TARIFF.
| We began this system or policy of
alleged fraud and robbery in 1861. The
circumstances were extraordinary. We
had an empty treasury and great war
confronting US. Extraordinary condi-
tions required extraordinary remedies.
We enacted a high protective tariff
among the means to obtain revenue
Democrats have constantly charged that
| we have done nothing to relieve the
country from the burden of that war
tariff.
What are the facts?
DUTIABLE AND FREE LIST COMPARED.
will not stop to point out how, by
| successive Acts, the dutiable list has de-
creased and the free list increased.
will not stop to tell you how many
millions of dollars went on to the free list
in the items of coffee and tea and sugar
and other important items.
One short, simple table will tell the
story of how the dttiable list has shrunk
and the free list has grown under Repub-
lican legislation.
The table also brings into comparison
the free trade period prior to 1861, years
ending June 30th:
Period. Dutiable Imports. Free Imports.
1855 TO TO 1851 IS per per cent cent % Per Per cent cent
1879 to 1888. 70 per cent. 80 per cent.
1892, 44.6 per cent. 55.4 per per cent cent.
In 1861 only p per cent. OF imports were
on the free list. Under the Mckinley
bill for the year ending June 80, 1892, the
free list had reached 55.4 per cent. For
the first time in our history we import
more free goods than dutiable.
There is still another way to prove that
the burdens of the high war tariff have
been removed.
In 1872 we collected s. 26 per capita of
our population for custom-house dues.
In 1892 we collected only 81 81 per
capita. In the past ten years we have re-
| duced the custom dues more than one
half per capita.
INCREASED IMPORTS AND EXPORTS. BUTT
RELATIVE INCREASE OF EXPORTS.
We are increasing both imports and
exports because our trade is increasing.
but one OF the beneficent results of our
| protective laws has been to decrease the
relative quantity of imports and increase
the exports. In other words, we are buy
ing less than we are selling, and this was
never true under any tariff for revenue
only. A simple table will demonstrate
what 1 say:
YEAR. Ay. Annual AE; Annual
,o,-+aIoe, 80 90 Imports d5G aoo Exports; .
1876 to 1890 626,0O0,ooo 730,0oo,0oo
| Here are fourteen years of free trade
and fourteen years of protection.
During free trade the annual balance
against US was Sl43, ,O00,OOO.
During protection the annual balance
in our favor was SI04, 100000.
In the fiscal year 1892, after the McKin-
ley bill, our exports exceeded imports
S202, ,944 ,342.
Another important fact Is that we ex-
| ported S195, ,S54,S16 more of merchandise
i'll 1892 than in 1891.
1 see no escaping the conclusion that
our notifications of the tariff law have
been many and that they have increased
VIC AAOO A1St anu dtO Li16 SAINT
time have increased the balance of trade
in our favor.
EFFECT OF TARIFF ON PRICES.
Mr.. Cleveland in his famous free-trade
message to Congress claimed that the
effect of duty was to add nearly the
amount to the cost of the article here to
the consumer. This is the persistent and
constant claim OF his party, and herein
lies the robbery of which we are accused.
If the Democrats would stop with the
claim that the imported article itself WAS