New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-12-15

What Is this tariff? Some Democrats are
calling II a protective tariff. though every FRO
tecionist IN the country opposes IT, Others are
calling II a revenue tariff. though II Is admitted
that It will reduce the revenue SCO,OOO,Ooo or
more. and create deficiency which direct taxes
must make good Others passionatcly deny that
It means Free Trade. though every Free Trader
favors it, What is 1t? Discussion Of details is
ant 10 confuse most minds. because few men
are familiar with the conditions and needs OF
Industries not their own Is there no way OF
determining exactly what it Is, so that there can
be no mistake!
The richest sugar plantation In Louisiana Is
enabled 10 exist by leyee which shuts ont the
floods Of the Mississippi. II this protecting
wall Is high enough 10 withstand every flood
the plantation thryes. the cane grows and Is
not destroyed, the costly machinery does its
work. AMI thousands of laborcrs earn living.
That Is protection. But II the leyce Is cut down
barely enough to let the destroying food pour
over It the plantation Is submerged, the ma
chlnery Is destroyed. III, cane Is ruined. and
thousands OF laborcrs are driven from their
homes and forced To fly, helpless paupers. TO
seek a chance 10 work somewhere else That is
free trade for the ruin is just the same rs If
the levcc had been torn down entirely. What
protects Is protection What does not protect
Is free trade.
The Wilson bill takes down more than half
the wall In some places, Il third In some. n
quarter in others, AMI men say. See how much
protection Is left" They do not know what
they are talking about. There Is no much or
little about protection that which keeps out
the food protects. and anything that does not
keep out the flood destroys The one and only
question TO be asked. then. is whether the bill
will keep out the flood The fact that working
men and employees in all sorts Of industries are
protesting. each against the clause which af-
fects the business he understands is proof that
In their belief It will not keep OUT the flood
The fact that all the Free Traders support the
bill is proof that they believe II will not The
present tariff yielded S2oi. 594 revenue last
year, and the Wilson bill proposes TO take off
about SGi 100000 or nearly II third. Yet even
under the present tariff the dutiable goods adj
mltted were $i2l .9lO.SG2. though such rs would
destroy home industry were so far shut ont that
the prosperity Of the country during that year
reached the highest point It ever attained. II
not a reduction OF third plainly let In the
flood?
The case will be clearer II single class of
goods like woollcns bc considered. In spite of
duties averaging 100 per cent. there were
imported for consumption of woollcn cloths
81, SOG,922 last year: the proposed duty is 40
per cent. In spite Of duties averaging 102 per
cent. there were imported Of dress goods Sill
s2I ,57i last year; the proposed duty Is 40 per
cent Is It not as plain as anything can be
that the reduction Is meant 10 let In the food?
The duties actually paid amounted to S32.0S0,-
J93 on these two items. and the proposed duty
go per cent. and yet men pretend that they do
not mean TO destroy the woollcn industry. But
It Is gravcly asserted that free wool will make
up all the difference TO the manufacturer. If
so, mt the cost Of the American farmer. whose
industry Is to be destroyed in
order that manufacture may exist under n Dem
)cratc tariff. But II is not true, for with both
Industries thriving under Republican tariff
he manufacturer has had enormous supplies Of
American wool. which he has so far preferred
rs to quality or chcapness that the whole clip
was consumed. and only the surplus required
was brought from abroad
This Is but one test of multitude which !
make 1t clear that the deliberate intent Is to
!, wcr the lcvec far enough t. let In Hood Of
foreign goods. And who does not know that
his is precisely what Free Traders have been |
promising they would do-lct the people have
,hcapcr goods from abroad? Whether cheaper !
n the end. time must determine. But it will |
lot be cheaper to those whose woolgrowing |
md wool-manufactlIring industries IL is intend !
ID to break down, nor 10 those who then have |
o support the people now earning good living
II those industries.