Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1893-10-19
Tariff Illumination.

II Is Sa1e TO assume tna5 every body
wants to know just the right thing to
believe in political economy as well as in
theology. In these troublous times we
naturally turn to our trusted representa-
tives in congress to set us right on the
burning question of the tariff. We are
glad, therefore, to discover that three of
the very cream of tariff experts, men,
bers of the ways and means committee
of the house of representatives, furnish
papers to The North American Review
on this very subject. We turn the
pages; our noses are quickly buried
therein.
What do we read? The first paper is
from Hon. Benton McMillin of Tennes-
see, Democrat. He writes in part:
We have now tried the tariff law of 1890 for
three years. During that period the country
has been under the highest rate of duty ever
imposed here. Its authors boldly announced
that it was not framed for revenue, but for
protection. 1t was put into operation when the
country was in prosperous condition.
Under this tariff gigantic trusts have been
formed to restrict productions and put up
prices. While it is not contended that the
formation of trust is never seen or is impos-
sible except under the influence OF tariff laws,
IL Is certainty true tnaL their organization mas
been and is greatly facilitated by tariff laws
which destroy or limit competition in produc-
ton.
Such are some OF the provisions of the law
of 1890 which the Democratic party is called
upon to revise. l defy any one to show one
laborer whose wages it has increased in the
three years it has existed. \ period of great
er financial depression was never known in our
history. Under it unemployed labor ready to
work has begged bread in the streets and al
most starved at home. Under it furnaces have
been banked, factories have been shut down,
and foundries have ceased to glow. Under it
there have been innumerable lockouts and re-
auctions of wages. Under it the great increase
OF tariff rates has been accompanied by no cor
responding increase in the wages of labor.
Under ii the rich farm lands of the country
have continued to fall in price.
What says another of our guides and
leaders of the ways and means committee
in the house, Hon. John Dalzell, Repub-
ican of Pennsylvania? He scars into the
empyrean in the following extract:
The party that for 80 years with marvellous
success guided the destinies of the nation has
been expelled from power, and responsibility
rests upon party trained not to upbuilding,
but to down pulling, not to construction, but TO
opposition. Conceding to it the fullest measure
of patriotic purpose, the fact remains that in
this generation it has not had n chance to put
into practice the art of governing. Nor does it
American people. While it brings to its re-
sponsible task a recent record of inexperience,
it brings also earlier record full of disaster.
One of the characteristic features of Repub-
lican rule is the system OF protection. By its
means home industries have been developed to
n variety, Importance and wealth difficult of
accurate measurement, and the field of re-
munerative labor enlarged to the wonderful
material prosperity and moral and social ad-
vancement of the wage Garner. The assertion
is incontrovertible that never in our history
were the ncCessaries of life cheaper, or wages
and the condition of labor on higher plane,
than when Mr.. Harrison went out of office
Without claiming this condition of things to
be due solely to the system of protection, il
must be admitted that that system is entitled
to q large, if not the largest, amount OF credit
therefor.
Our third friend, Hon. w. J. BRYAN
of Nebraska, elected as Democrat, now
announcing himself Populist, contrib
utes this as part of his share of the gen
eral illumination:
The operation of the tariff is simple. Under
IA 80 per cent duty article worth 81 is i'm
ported, the 80 per cent duty added, and the
consumer buys it for Sl.Jn, plus expenses and
profits This tax is either paid by the foreigner
who sells 10 or by the consumer in this
country who finally uses the article. II paid
by the foreigner, then in the case above re-
ferred to the foreigner reduces his price from
Sl5O to 81, so that when the duty is paid the
price with the tariff will be the same that it
would have been without the tariff. To show
the absurdity OF this position il is not ncCcS-
sary to inquire why the protcCtiOnist advocates
such a variety of duties twhy not treat all for
cign nations alike and subject them to equal
duties:) but it is sufficient to say that tariff
which is not paid by the consumer is OF no
benefit TO the protected industry.
II the producer OF the protected article re-
ccivcs the same price for his goods with OF
without a tariff, what difference does il make
TO him whether the duty be high or low? If he
cannot compete without the aid of a tariff
how can it help him except by enabling him &c
charge higher price for his product? How
can he charge higher price unless he can
compel the consumer to pay itY And how can
he compel the consumer to pay it unless the
tariff increases to the consumer the price OF
the competing article! The only reasonable OF
/ logical purpose of the tariff, therefore, is &c
compel the consumer to buy at home Mt high
price by preventing n purchase abroad at a
/ lower price. 1t is here that the principle OF
protection violates the right of the individual
! and its establishment disreEards the spirit, ii
/ not the letter, of the constitution.