The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1894-03-30
NOT DISCUSSING RATES.
But the Tariff Policy of the Country
Should Remain Protective.


Should Remain Protective.
l am not here to discuss tariff rates or
schedules. These are subject to change
up or down, as new conditions require it;
but my insistence is that these changes
must ever be governed by the protective
principle, and within that principle rates
may be, should be and will be amended as
time, new processes of manufacture and
changed commercial conditions require;
but they must not fall below a rate which
will adequately measure the difference be-
tween the American scale of wages and
that of competing countries, and must
always be in favor of the labor of our own
country and the home market for our
people The principles upon which they
were made are not subject to amendment.
The tariff policy of this country must be
protective. That is what we contend for
that is what the American people mean to
have.
During the Harrison Administration.
The pretext for the proposed bill is not
to raise more revenue. The declaration of
itsssauthor and the house committee is that
it will reduce the revenue. The same eff
fort at tariff reduction has been repeat
edly made in the past when we had sur
law was adequate to meet all the expenses
of the government, and did meet them for
the first two and half years of it's opera
ton. During no year of President Harri-
sons administration did the receipts fall
below the expenses of the government, and
when President Harrison went out of
power, while his administration had paid
off more than 1926, 100000 of the principal
and interest of the national debt, yet he
turned over to the administration which
succeeded him a surplus IF upward of
124,OO0,OO0, including the reserve fund,
which, under the Republican policy had
never been encroached upon.
A Difference of Tariff Schools.
The advocates of tariff taxation are di-
vided into two schools Both schools be-
lieve in raising public money by a tariff,
and only differ as to the kind of tariff to
accomplish this purpose. One school, the
Democratic school, advocates a tariff for
revenue only; the other, the Republican
school, advocates tariff for revenue and
also protection. A revenue tariff has no
other aim or purpose and disclaims every
other save revenue. A protective tariff,
while raising all needed revenue, is ever
mindful that the taxes imposed shall be
upon those foreign products which will
most encourage domestic production and
rest most lightly upon the consumer.
The revenue tariff is unmindful of
the development and prosperity of
our country. The protective tariff,
while having revenue and the needs of the
treasury always in view, steadily keeps in
mind our own industries and the occupa-
tions of our own people, A revenue tariff
seeks out articles of prime necessity, often
such as we can not produce in our coun-
try and makes them the subject of taxa
ton. The senate has just introduced an
amendment to the Wilson bill which is a
striking illustration of a revenue tariff. 1t
takes sugar, an article which enters into
every mans household, and which, for the
most part, we do not produce at home,
from the free list and places it upon the
dutiable list.
A revenue tariff will raise revenue for
time at least, but it is inadequate to en-
courage, promote and protect production
in our own country. Protection seeks out
those articles of foreign production which
we can produce at home and puts a tariff
upon them, and while every imports ton
of such articles produces revenue W 1ich
goes into the treasury, it at the same time
Stimulates Domestic Production
and sustains and defends our domestic an
terprises. So long as we have to use the
taxing power, why not use it in the inter-
est of our own people and their occupa-
tions? What is the gain if we do
put money into the public treasury
under a revenue tariff and thereby
discourage domestic enterprise and
destroy the opportunity for capital and
labor to earn money? Why tax foreign
article which we cannot produce rather
than one which we can? In the former
case we help no domestic industry; in the
latter our tariffs discriminate against the
foreign and in favor of the home product.
A tariff levied exclusively for revenue en-
courages foreign importations-that is
what it is made for, and when such tar
iff is levied on articles the like of which
we produce at no he, j. discourages our
own producers by depriving them of the
home market which justly belongs to them.
A revenue tariff encourages no home en-
terrrises; it supplies employment tt