The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-07-06
HAVE WE 100 MUCH PROTECTION?

TO the Editor of the Eagle.
1t is not to question any mans right to
think as he pleases ON this or any other
question that this is written, but to point
out one or two popular fallacies that seem
to have taken hold of Democrats generally
and Republicans occasionally.
Not long since Colonel A L. Conger of
Ohio had himself interviewed Tor the
| avowed purpose of disparaging McKln-
ley's candidacy for president Whether he
will succeed or not remains to be seen. but
in making fool OF himself on the tariff
question his success is phenomenal.
He attributes our defeat in 1892 to TOO
much protection" and then goes on to say
in substance that lust as soon as an in
dUsrry can bear the reduction, the tariff
should be lowered, from which the infer
ence is irresistible that he thinks the price
OF the article to the consumer will be re-
duced. II Colonel CoDger had said that
our defeat was due TO a belief thai we had
too much protection he might have Kept
within the bounds Of common
sense. But 10 the point: His
statement practically admits the truth of
the leading argument of free traders, viz:
That ''the consumer pays the tariff taxes.
furthermore. he practically ignores one Of
tue chief reasons, from a Republican
standpoint, for having any tariff Al all,
VIZ: Revenue.
The object of tariff, from our stand
poIut, is two-fOld: protection and revenue.
To be consistent proJecJiOnlst cannot
admit that We have too much protection
aad assign as a reason that II enhances the
cost of the article ID the Consumer; first,
because he gives away his whole case in
/ Il IL lf IL gf
true. We are Coufuing ourselves TO ar
ticles that can be made here IN sufficient
quantities 10 meet the demand. II the
claim had been made that we had too
much protection" because it might in time
cut OF many sources OF revenue by reduc-
ing the cost so low that importatious
would be shut of il might, perhaps, have
been within the bounds OF consistency ana
reason Changes IN schedules are neces-
SATy from time 10 time, conditions
change, but these changes have but little
reference TO the manipulation Of prices.
The consistent pEOiectl0rlst aims 10 strike
taat intermediate point between the sx-
tTeme OF high protection or pVo4I-
bJIon on the one hand and free
trade on the other that viii adequately
mark the difference between the cOudi-
tIons OF production IN this country aud
our foreign competitors. \ rate OF tariff
that viii not bar the foreigner out, hut
compel MIN TO meet y, ia com DeLlilon "
taking less for his wares IN order that be
may enter and stay IN the field 10 this
way be Is forced 10 pay license Tor doing
business in This market. In other words
BE pays as much OF the tariff As the duty
i a part OF the difference between csndi-
tons here and IL his own county. IL that
aGJy covers The whole c ference IN wages
and o.her conditions, and he Still does bus
ness VITA Us he pays all the ducy.
To illustrate: II costs - 70 make al art
ice II England, ana SO here. Il sells ia
the market for Sill II We impose a duty
or - on the imported article competitors
IN both countries are on an equal foOting,
and sharp sompetlt on sets IA. The toi-
riEuer pays the dusy % long a. tins coudl-
ton remains II 10y the competition thus pro
ducea the prise u the ar;lcle should fall 20
$40 a Il result Of Improvements IN methods
or Production. the foreigner vUIid be tex
en- at = disadvantage, Tor the reason
tAst while the se.4iaE price IS srEiGklGg
tie duty : Los. and Is the
further TACT thst MS -ccm for improve
uent IS not great ss our, having al
ready established himself through hun
dEeds o. years c. nsngtsct 9rl1s. 80