The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-04-18
THE PKINLEY TARIFF NOT A PRIN-
CIPLE.

Senator Quay, of Pennsylvania, delivered
an excellent speech on the tariff question n
few days ago. Senator Quay is sometimes
called the silent Man." He certainly
never talks for the sake of talking, and
VIXEN he does talk he says something. He
is much ADLER man than he generally gets
credit for. He is a reader and thinker, and
few men in public life are better posted on
public questions than he. At one point in
his speech, he referred to the common
charge that the Republican party was irrev-
ocably committed to the Mckinley tariff
as the ultimate expression of legislative
wisdom and a perfect formula of protec-
ton. On this point Senator Quay said:
The Mckinley bill was not a principle: it
was an experimental application of a
theory. The exact results OF its operations
could not safely be predicted because no
the various schedules it embraced, could
understand with absolute precision the ex-
act measure of protection which it would
extend each article catalogued in it's
hundreds of paragraphs.
The Mckinley bill was designed as an ex-
emplihcation of the Republican idea of
what fostering encouragement was due to
American capital and American labor. AS
finally placed upon the statute books it
was still subject to every modification
which its operation in practice might show
to be necessary in the equitable interest of
the producer OF raw material, of the manu-
facturer and those he employed and of the
consumer OF the finished article, as we'll as
of the national treasury, TO which it prom
ised revenue.
1t is not perfect, nor considered by it's
authors to be perfect. 1t was felt and was
stated that, as would be the case with any
tariff law, its application of the principle of
protection would develop faults of detail
with time and experience. Nothing is more
certain than that, even had not the Demo-
cratic party succeeded in 1892 a revision of
the Mckinley law at the hands of the party
which enacted 1T would nevertheless in
time be necessary. l am prepared TO make
this admission freely, and even TO carry
1t so far as to state. speaking for myself.
that If the present Congress could devise a
reasonable measure, which would permit
the continued employment of American la
Dor and capital at living wages and fair
profits even though involving reductions,
in some instances perhaps large reductions,
from present rates of duties. with the I'M
Outstanding that IL was a determination of
our dispute for term of years, L would
not oppose il.
This is true. The Republican party should
not allow itself to be put in the position of
maintaining that the Mckinley law is abb
solutely perfect and too sacred for amend
ment. Circumstances have made it their
line of battle at present, and as an honest
expression and application of the doctrine
Of protection they do well TO defend it.
But there will be other protective tariffs
after the Mckinley tariff. and perhaps in
some respects better ones. As Senator
Quay well said, 1.-The Mckinley bill was
not a principle; it was an experimental APP
plication of a theory" What Republicans
are fighting for is the principle of protec-
ton, not any particular application Of il.
II the Wilson bill should not pass it may
yet devolve on a Republican Congress 10
revise and amend the Mckinley law. In
that case II will be done on protection
lines and in such way as TO benefit in
stead of destroying American industries.
No tariff can be framed which will not de-
velop some defects. and in the course Of
time require amendments. on account OF
the interference with. business. changes
should be as few and es infrequent as pos