The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-01-17


trade is no new thing under the sun.
It was thoroughly ventilated many
years ago in Europe. and particularly
in Great Britain The decision there
was ultimately given in favor of what
might be called a mixed policy, but
which has been technically known as
free trade"
Free trade, however, in its full sense,
lis almost an impossibility under pres
ent conditions in this world. The Eng
fish policy is to admit some things free
of duty and impose a tariff on others.
But the purpose held in view in impos-
ing that tariff is to raise revenue for
government expenses. And the purpose
in admitting some articles free of duty,
is to supply the country cheaply with
many things that are not produced
therein or are produced in quantities
insufficient for general use.
This is measurably the policy fol-
lowed in this country That is to say,
some articles are on the free list while
duties are imposed on others. The
difference between the two theories is
in the object and intent of the tariff.
One party makes it simply for the pur-
pose of raising national revenue; the
other to protect certain industries
which it is contended are thus fostered
and encouraged. But a tariff for reve-
nue. has the effect of incidentally pro-
tecting the industries by which the ar
ticles thus taxed are produced, and a
protective tariff incidentally raises rev.
enue for the government.
People who have not gone thoroughly
into the subject fail to discover much
difference between the two. They in
quire if a. tariff for revenue protects
and a tariff for protection brings reve-
nue., is it not mere question of twee-
dle-dee and tweedle-dum? But there is
a good deal more than that in the dis
pute.
When the great purpose in view is
to give an opportunity for certain
classes to put high price upon their
wares or products, and the raising of
revenue is merely incidental to that,
the constitutional power of govern
ment appears to be perverted. The i'm
position of customs and duties is
authorized for public purposes only.
The Democratic idea is that it is not
the function of government to go into
business or to legislate for a private
concern or corporation.
It is claimed, however, that the effect
of high tariff is eventually to bring
down the price of the article protected,
and thus, while employment is pro-
vided for working people the public are
benefited, eventually, by the cheaper
ing of the home raised or home manu-
featured goods.
But experience has shown that after
these protected Industries have had the
benefit of high tariffs, they do not
agree to the reduction of duties in pro-
portion to the cheapening process
which they maintain is going on be-
cause of the tariff, and, as Mr.. Wilson
stated when speaking in reference to
his bill, Protection left to it's natural
momentum never stops short of pro-
hibition, and prohibitory walls are al
ways needing to be built higher or to
be patched and strengthened"
Infant industries which with great
degree of plausibility call for govern
mental aid to give them start, either
by protective tariff or bounty, be-
come hungrier and greedier the more
national pap they receive. And the
duties said to have been necessary in
their childhood are actually increased
as they grow older AMI sturdier and
can fight for that which they at first
craved as a boon.
1t is fact that manufacturers who
had received the benefit of protection
for many years have used the money
and influence they had gained by that
means, to perpetuate and increase the
protective duties under which they
accumulated fortunes. And while there
might be many Democrats who would
yield a point in favor of some industry
+La+ ---o,,Id ,oro1-o q oov,,,,,o,, I,a,oG+
and be willing that something should
be done which in effect would aid it in
gaining a start. yet when they see
money and influence gained in that
way, expended for the purpose of main
tanning and even increasing that pro-
lection, they object to the whole sys-
tenn as a fraud on the public, which
in too many cases it certainly is.
In denouncing that system, the Dem
ocratic party did not intend or an
nounce any intention of destroying
the tariff. The purpose was to reform
it by placing it on a revenue basis.
The Wilson bill is opposed by the Re-
publican party, and yet with the ex-
ception of its proposal as to raw ma
terials, the reductions of the duties it
aims at are not greater than that
party has pretended to favor in former
years. It is opposed by some Demo
Gratis on that very ground; they think
it is too conservative.
If the people of the United States,