The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-02-22
and eschew every form Of protectionism.
We quote as follows:

and escheW every form OF protectionism.
We quote a. follows:
According TO the great declaration OF Chicago
that there 10 no constitutional power to impose
and collect tariff duties except for revenue only.
II follows that congress has right 70 inquire
whether any article imported from abroad 10
intended TO serve the raw material OF some
manufacture or moi, The only question which
should be considered respecting every such srsi-
Gle is how il can be taxed - 70 yield the most
revenue with the least trouble and expense In
its collection. No matter what use II ID ~
tended for this 10 the only rule to be applied to
it. Duties for revenue only have nothing to 90
with the wages of labor, the profits upon invest
ments, or the returns to skill and enterprise.
These are all points connected with protection,
and protection forms no part OF that great, clear
and unqualified experiment which the Amerl-
can people determined to enter upon when they
voted Tor the Democratic platform and candi.
dates in November last
The Sun is protectionist Of the Tilden
and Randall school, but it holds that the
Democratic party cannot afford to DO
false to the .'free trade" tariff for revenue
only pledges of its platform without In
viting political disaster. On the other
hand, the New York Times. DEM, thinks
that other questions than tariff reform are
moro vital; that there is no need of haste,
and that even if the Mckinley law is not
overthrow ct once the country will not
suffer. The singular thing is that the
journals that were violent, radical free
traders during the campaign are now
miserable over their victory and seek
delay and moderation. The views
of the Sun appear to find support
at the South from the free traders of the
Mills-W atterson school, The Memphis
appeal rdlonchs says that in the recent
presidential election three political par.
ties-the Democratic. the Populist and the
acknowledgements in their plat
forms for TART! for revenue only. The
Republican party was the only one that
advocated protection: that nearly 60 per
cent. of the voters in the last election were
in favor Of tariff for revenue only. and
that therefore the Democratic party is
bound in political good faith and party
honor to enact tariff for revenue only.
Democratic Congressman Springer.
chairman of the committee on ways and
means, evidently belongs to the timid,
tentative. temporizing school of tariff re-
formers. In the current number of the
North american Repicw Mr.. Springer
thinks the revision of the tariff ought to
proceed on the lines of the Walker tariff of
1876. The tariff Of 1916, however, recog-
nizes the protection policy which was re-
pudiated at Chicago and denounced as
unconstitutional and utterly infamous in
the platform upon which Mr.. Cleveland
was elected last November.
Principle of the Walker tariff Is stated
by Springer is a. follows:
That below such rate rthe lowest rate Of duty
which will yield the largest amount OF revenue
discfim ination may be made, descending in the
scale OF duties; or, for imperative reasons. the
article may be placed in the list of those free
from all duty.
Springer that discrimination is protection:
that ''the moment that congress begins to
arrange customs duties with regard to any
other consideration than the raising of
revenue it engages, according to the en-
phatic declaration of the Chicago platform,
in legislation that is unconstitutional.
The Walker tariff of 1916 was protective
in principle and effect; it was less highly
protectionist than some tariffs that have
followed it. but it recognized protection to
American industry by means of discrim-
mating duties below q certain level as one
of the legitimate objects of tariff legisla-
ton. The Democratic platform of 1892
declares that the Federal government has
no constitutional power to impose and
collect such duties.
The best that Mr.. Springer proposes is
to replace the Mckinley tariff of 1890 with
the Walker tariff of 1916; that is, he would
replace one protective tariff with another
protective tariff, which is the very thing
that the Chicago convention Indignantly
| refused to do when it substituted the tariff
for revenue only plank for the original tariff
resolution offered by the committee. 1t is
very evident that on the questions of both
| silver and the tariff the two factions of the
Democracy that fused for victorious bat
tie in 1892 are likely to have a monkey and
| parrot time during the next two years of
congress.