The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-03-25
HOW WILL THE WEST LIKE TIT

Our dispatches yesterday contained the
synopsis of bill which the Democratic
Tariff Reform Club of New York city pro-
poses to urge upon congress cas- substitute
for the present tariff laws. and the fulfill
ment Of the pledges under which the DEM
ocracy obtained control of the national gov
eminent" This bill was prepared by the
Democratic tariff reformers Of New York
city ut the request of Secretary Carlisle,
who desired to be acquainted with their
views. This tariff bill proposes free raw
materials Snd protected manufactures.
This means FREQ wool, free ore, free pig
iron. ingots and bars, free farm products
(save petatoes), free lumber and free coal,
and free hops. It makes raw silk free to
the silk manufacturer, but protects all
forms of silk manufactures; it makes wool
free to the wooden ard worsted manu-
facturer. but protects all forms OF wool
manufactures by Is per cent duty; It
makes crude metal in all Its forms free to
the manufacturer Of iron and steel goods.
tects the Eastern manufacturer by Is
per cent. duty, while it gives him the adj
ditional bonus of free raw materials, 10
described as the fulfillment of the pledge
Of the Chicago platform which denounced
protection - unconstitutional and de-
clared for tariff for revenue only. This
proposed tariff bill 10 in line with the orig
inal tariff plank proposed at Chicago. but
this original plank was deliberately re-
jected and An incorporating. unquaii-
fed denunciation Of protection with .
declaration for . tariff for revenue only
substituted.
OF course this proposed bill Is q mere
mockery of the Democratic tariff plank
adopted at Chicago; it is q cool and inn
pudent proposition to replace the plank
actually adopted at Chicago with the re-
jected stone. No candid man will say that
you fulfill . promise actually made by
keeping q promise you refused to make.
Col. Watterson, who secured the rejection
of this proposed tariff at Chicago and sub
stituted the demand for q tariff for
revenue only cries out today for the i'm
mediate uprooting of every vestige of pro-
lection in the tariff. The Democratic
Reform Club. Of New York city. not only
decline to keep that pledge of their plat
form. but continue protection to the
Eastern manufacturer and more than
make up to him for . reduction of the
duty to Is per cent. by gift of free raw
materials. The Eastern Democracy call
for tariff framed in accordance with
Cieyeland's tariff message of 1887, when he
said:
1t is not proposed to entirely relieve the
country of this lprotectivel taxation. It must
be extensively continued as the source Of the
governments income, and In . adjustment Of
our tariff the interests Of American labor en-.
gagged in manufacture should DO carefully con.
sidered - well - the preserva of our manu-.
facturerA 1t may b called protection, or by
any other name, but relief from the hardships
ana dangers OF our present tariff laws should b
devised with especial precautions against i'm.
periling the existence Of our manufacturing in
tsrests.
This is what Cleveland tried to get
adopted at Chicago. but it was rejected for
Watterson's demand for complete ex-
cision OF the principle Of protection as UNI
constitutional and unjust and his declara-
ton for tariff for revenue only.
How would the West like free wool.
when today it is evident that this country
will produce more wool this year than it
has ever produced in year7 The official
report OF animals for January shows an
increase In the number of sheep from A,
93s. S65 last year to 47.27s. $50 January l,
1898, an increase Of 2. 1886. 1888 in year. not
outstanding q large decrease in Texas
and Colorado. Great gains are reported
in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and most of
the Northwestern states. This increase in
the number of sheep should add from 49,
00o.0o0 to 20, 0oO, 900 pounds to the product
of wool, so that the clip of 1893. with reason
ably good fortune, should exceed $50. OOO,-
600 pounds. The largest quantity reported
for any previous year was 337. 200, 600
pounds. in 1854, before the reduction of
duties by the tariff of 1889, which proved
| so disastrous to wool growers and manu-
facturers, had time to take effect.
This increase is but small compared with
what might fairly have been expected if
the November election had resulted in
favor Of free wool and DISCOURAGED any
further increase in iocks. When the first
protective tariff was enacted in 1861 the
production of wool here was about 70. 900. :
600 pounds against 40.OO0, 900 in Great
Britain. In 1867, the year after the first
effective wool tariff, the American and the
British production were both 100. 900 900
pounds. Since that time the American
production has more than doubled. while
the British production Is actually smaller
now than it was twenty-sx years ago.
England uses more than two pounds for.
egn for one pound home wool. while the
United States uses more than two pounds
home grown for one pound imported wool.
ana yet it is asserted that protection Is of
10 use 70 wool growers. The consumption
of the two countries for . series of years is
ss follows:
1867 ..................... l3&,-53.o0 196,eaQ 900
l>tf.-....-.............. 81. sSs.i43 5s7,07i 20
l>>S Observation-Disclosures. ~ 2s6.5o4 $685. so9
i>>P ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. &6.eSa.p3 As, a65, l4s
lss- -..-.....--........ 499,5i.,si9 1888 557
And yet, IN face Of these figures of a
large, valuable indu stry ;ha. has steadily
grown under protection since 1867. these
Eastern Democrats propose to destroy
the Industry y placing wool on the free
list fer the benefit OF protected Eastern
wooden II manufacturers.