The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1894-06-21
A CONSISTENT TARIFF.
Cleveland Plain Dealer.

every lnihg brought INTO tEiS countl
which is sold in competition wit
e. what we produce here.
If the per cent in such a tariff bi
is 33& which is about the averao
of the present senate bill, it will b
: a source of great revenue while q
the same time, it would afford
{ corresponding per cent of protect
ION TO our own industries. Tha
kind of tariff originated in the frs
l congress held under the constitution
1t was designated as tariff for rev
enue. 1t was plainly stated ais
: that it was intended to foster Ameri
can industries. In those days, an,
indeed for the first seventy year
of the republic, hardly
single person raised an objection t,
a tariff for revenue with incidental
protection.
The Wing party were high pro.
tectlonists. The Democratic party
were low tariff men. Both of these
parties agreed, however, that there
should be certain per cent of pro
lection and they did not finch in
saying that tariff was for the pur-
pose of fostering American indus
tries as against the free Importation
of foreign goods.
1t Is only within very few years
tn hat the free trader has been abroad
in The land. The emissaries of Emo
land began long ago to fight against
the American tariff system. They
did it before the war. They always
coveted America as a field in which
to sell their merchandise. The pro-
paganda of the Golden club worked
early and late to make converts in
America, FOR the sentinels of Eng
land never sleep on their posts when
there Is commercial advantage 10
be obtained. They covet, more than
all other the markets of the United
States. Now, while the ideal tariff
Is the one that would be based upon
the principles above stated, the pres
ent tariff bill pending in the United
States senate has much of this doc.
trine in it.
1t comes very much nearer to
correct tariff bill than the Mex inley
bill or any other bill that was foun-
ded and formed on the idea of pro-
lection, Or, i'll other words, that was
the embodiment of the wishes and
opinions of interested parties by
which all that they asked for in the
way ofprotection was granted them.
This present bill is not that kind |
OF bill. In not one single instance
has the greed Of manufacturers been
granted to the extent they have ask
ed. AS general thing the reduct-
ions from the Mckinley bill have
been about 3026; from that to 339o
on the average.
The most fragrant thing in the
present bill is III the wool and wool
IN schedule, by which the manufact-
lrers of woolens have protection of
lbont 45% while they are permitted
o force the farmer 20 sell his wool j
II free competition with the wool
aisers of Australia and South
America: No one can defend that {;
ind OF action.
The money and the work employ, '
d in the wool industry Is just as sa- t
red as that employed in factories ]
nd mills. 1t is class legislation to {
i've protection to the manufacturer c
nd discriminate against the produ- t
ers of wool. 1t is on the same t
that the Mckinley bill C
ave free susar to the sugar trust In a
lew Y lork and then protected man o
factured sugar. They are both alb a
olutely indefensible on just and 6
ghteous economic principles. b
The free traders are rampant for r
l kinds OF free theories. They tell tt
; that there must be in no case any Il
I'D a Democratic bill. The IL
inverse of this, then, must be true,
at that the tariff must be placed W
ION things that are not produced in tt
Is country in order to be tariff L
Ithout any protection. That was '
:ver doctrine of The Democratic IL
rty, Not single plank of free CO
lde was eyer approved. Sc
The president interpreted the su
lole of the question of raw mate a
lis IN the line of free raw material VIZ
llch would come from reduction be
the tariff. He stated plainly and sa
oeatedly that free trade was i'm pll
ssible, and so it is, impossible to to
cry practical American, ac'
fhe onl y consistent and thorough ed
Fensible tariff is one that Is foun- an
1 on the idea of revenue with in tn,
entail protection, :