The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-12-22

and is defended by it's authors by argu-
| ments and expressions strangely like
those which they used so hotly to de-
nounce. A manufacturer is told that the
duty. will protect him, and his claims
| are listened to on that basis, and are
| argued with him on that basis, just as
| In he brave days of old.
The new Democratic district attorney
| of the northern district of New York
comes down. as he had right to, and
declares that, from protection stand
point, barley aud malt can not go TO-
gether under the same ad valorem, and
promptly the comm ittee raised the tariff
taxes from 25 per cent to 80 to protect
the manufacturer, though it must lessen
the revenue.
So also some zone has presented per-
suasively the cause ofssboards, planed,
and although the lum ber passes in the
same plant from theasaws.to the planners,
the work of the men who manage the
saws Is unprotected while the work of
the men who run the planes is shielded
by protective tariff taxes.
These are but instances Of corrections
made where the ear of the committee
could be had and are keys to the notions
on which the bill was formed.
The new plan also involves new
method OF encouraging manufacturers
by giving them what are called "free
raw materials" so that what goes into
the mill pays no taxes and what goes in
to consumption pays all the taxes. The
manufacturers pay no taxes on what they
buy and the people the equivalent of
taxes on all they purchase.
1t unfortunately happens also that
free raw material" is an elastic term,
and what is one mans free raw material
is another mans finished product. The
manufacturer in Massachusetts, is told
that he is to be encouraged
BY Having Free Lumber
to build his factory and to pack his goods,
but inasmuch as that very lumber thus
made free is the Maine manufacturers
finished product, no wonder the Demo-
Gratis of Bangor, the mills on the Penob-
scot being unable to move saw, de-
| nounce class legislation" with a new
appreciation of what class legislation
really means. And with the dwellers on
the Penobscot sympathize the lumber
men in Wisconsin and Michigan, the
Pacific Slope, Alabama. Georgia and
Florida. So also the miners in Michigan,
| struggling this very moment with star
walton, realize that the mosG odious class
legislation there can possib be IS the
| legislation which protects labor in the
mill and leaves it in the mines to the
| charity of the great cities.
| These so-called free raw materials,
| free wool. free coal, and free iron. are
| not put on the free list with any refer
ence direct or indirect to raising revenue
| They are placed there to encourage man
ufacturers who are to be compensated
| for any loss in this market by the
markets of the world where they will
| have the chance to struggle with the
cheaper labor of the Old World with
the struggle at home with that, same
! cheaper labor let into our markets by a
lower tariff which does not give us the
compensation even OF larger revenue.
These deiusive advantages are to be
| given the manufacturers at the expense
of thesminers who dig out the ores and
mine the coal, at the expense of the
farmers who raise the woll, and the rail-
roads which transport all these products
With these advantages, thus obtained at
! the expense of other citizens, the manu-
| facturers, forced by the lowering Of the
| tariff to fight forstheir markets at home,
are to enjoy unlimited foreign trade.
How they can obtain a foothold in
| foreign lands when this very DILL is
drafted upon the supposition that they
| can not keep their own markets without
protection seems beyond the domain of
logic.
If the woolens of America need, as this
bill assumes, 30 and 10 per cent to enable
them to have a fair chance in our own
markets, where is the unlimited foreign
| trade which awaits them in countries
where they are stripped Of the 80 and 40
| per cent protection and obliged to pay
| freight and all other charges and tight
business connections existing for scores
/ of years?
All the objections so often urged by the
| dominant party against the existing sys-
tenn, we repeat, lie against this bill
The difference is only one of degree. II
the present system be robbery as these
| men have iterated and reiterated, the
proposed system is precisely the same.
1t is true that the consumer will no
| longer pay tribute to the western farmer
for the wool of she sheep, but the New
England and other manufacturers are
still authorized to lay tribute upon the
citizens of the United States, who must
| pay, so these men have always said, 80,
| 4O and 46 per cent to the manufacturer
on every yard of woolens and worsteds,
| whila the country will only receive, by
way of revenue, a lessened sum, unless
! increased importations signalize the
| decay of American production.
1t is true that the coal miners of West
| Virginia and the ore producers of Michi-
| gan will be stripped of their so-called
| robber gains entirely and the railroads
must lose transportation of millions of
| tons of freight; but the manufacturers
are hereby Stimulated and aided SO. that
| they can, as the committee asseverate,
| still continue their profitable business
here and reach across the ocean for the
business of other countries and" foreign
| trade without limit
! If, as it is asseverated, the 700, 90, 600
of American people have been for thirty
| years taxed for the benefit of few hun
dred thousands of favored individuals,
| why should the taxation be confined
| even in diminished ratio for another
series of years and these few hundred
thousand favored creatures be given a
| n ew lease of life?
| The doctrine of the Democratic plat
| form that protection is robbery and
should be abolihsed is Comprehensive
andsssturdy. The new movement on b.
| half of
Mitigated and Sporadic Robbery
is contrary alike to good morals and
public faith. All false pretenses are un-
wise, contrary to sound policy and sound
statesmanship. Hence many of us who