The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-01-10

AOu. ltrcAAk0u DutlONc III nto 0tit Sha
eloquent criticism of the Wilson bill
yesterday made one Of the most lucid
and comprehensive statements of the
radical difference between the Demo.
cratic aud Republican conceptions Of
the tariff question thai has ever been
presented in print and SO admirably does
he draw the lines that The News feels
that IL should reprint his concise state
ment OF the two policies.
He said; On the one hand. the Dem-
ocratic party insists that revenue Is the
only lawful purpose for which any duty
can be imposed, and that such exactIons
therefore must be for revenue only. re-
gardless of the conditions ornecessities
of American industries or American la
Dor; and 20 that end they would admit
free of duty, indiscliminately, all pro-
ducts which they are pleased 10 denom-
mate "raw material" and impose rate
of duty on manufactured articles suffi-
GENTLY low 10 insure their importation
into our market, and thereby secure the
only purpose OF Democratic tariff,
namely, "revenue."
On tre other hand, the Republican
party believes i'm a tariff which, while
yielding revenue for the support of the
government, shall at the same time be
so adjusted as 10 pr, mote the establish
ment and the maintenance Of domestic
industries and the protection of Ameri-
can workmen and TO that end would
admit free OF duty all articles, raw or
manufac ureI (exceps luxnries), M
ing from any place on The face OF the
globe, The like Of which are not,
or cannot, be advantag eously pro-
duced in this country, and impose
duties only on the things we do, or
can. produce, and make that rate high
enough 10 measure he difference be-
tween the cost OF the foreign and do
mestic product, and by that means
stimulate the development OF all our
resources and insure the employment OF
all our people.
Here in nutshell il given the entire
tariff policies of both parties, and who
is there who can fail to appreciate the
immense superiority of the Republican
idea Of tariff.
Mr.. Burrows SO triumphantly dis
proved the Democratic assert ions con-
cerning the protective system as to
coufound and overwhelm his Democratic
auditors. The Democracy has asserted
vigorously that the Mckinley bill would
restrict our export trade: would raise
the price Of manufactured articles;
that IL would develop no new industries
and would bring no result or benefit to
the workmen.
What are the facts to oppose this
Democratic prediction? 1t Increased
our foreign trade Si2s, ,2S3. .4Oi in 1892.
II increased our export trade S145. 797,-
2SS during the same ear-and the total
volume of our exports exceeded the val
ne of our imports by seq, ss5, ,6S6, the
total being 81, ,03O, ,27s. 14s.
With thousand million dollars worth
of goods sli abroad in single year the
Democratic rreiensions that our market
is confined simply to the United States,
and that we cannot sell to foreign coun-
tries because OF the protective system is
plainly exposed. Instead of increasing
the cost Of manufactured goods it stimu-
lated competition at home and reduced
prices, while American workmen were
benefited by the enlarged employment
and the higher wage rates.
New industries sprang up on every
hand and never in our history has there
been year of greater industrial activity.
As these triumphant assertions poured
from the lips CT the champion of protec-
ton in torrent of accusing
facts the Democratic opponents
of protection sat dumb and wondered at
their own blindness. A more mastery
argument in favor of the protective
system was never delivered on the floors
of the house, AMI never were the Oft
repeated assertions of the Democracy
more conclusively disposed OF and denied
by the mere statement of facts