The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1895-11-23
rHE KIMBALL GRAPHIC
CLATE r. TINAN.
Official Pauer Of the Cityot KimbaIl
THE TARIFF.

1t should be as plain to Tom Bishop as
to any other man that the tariff which
will afford sufficient revenue to carry on
the expenses of this government must IN
the very nature of things give ample
protection.-GRAPHIC.
That man OF Clate Tinan's intelli-
gence should make such statement is
another illustration Of how easy it is for
the human mind to err. A tariff for
revenue is BY no means tariff for pro-
lection. neither is it necessarily a pro-
tectiye tariff. Duties levied on such
articles as this country does not manu-
factnre or produce is not protective
tariff, but a tariff for revenue only"
That's the Democratic doctrine. while
Republican tariff Is LAID upon such arti-
cles as may be manufactured or produced
by home enterprise. In both cases the
object is revenue but the Republican
theory includes protection.-H0ward
Press.
The teachings Of the best litterateurs:
to leave something to the imagination
Of the reader, works better in theory
than in practice, 1t seems, sometimes
too many are prone to imagine all sorts
Of things contrary to the meaning Of the
writer. This is very apt to be the case
when intelligence is warped by parti-
sanship. The editorial in the GRAPHIC
from which the foregoing extract was
taken was too lengthy in its treatment
Of the main subject-Tom Bishops drift
toward McKinleyism-to to admit an clap
crate elucidation of every statement
| made.
The Press says that tariff for revenue
only is not necessarily protective tariff.
Mr.. Person imagines. we infer. that un-
der tariff for revenue only the neces-
sary expenses OF the government might
be raised bv leyying duty exclusively.
or practically so, on such products and
articles as are not manufactured in the
United States. Unfortunately, how
ever. for his hypothesis the duty
in such u case would Of neces-
sitY be so excessive as to shut out
the imports almost entirely-thus fail
ing to provide sufficient reyenue-and
even would not this be the natural re-
suit, a tariff of this kind would not be q
tariff for revenue only. tariff fol
revenue only admits Of only one inter
pretation. 1t is a straight, uniform
tariff upon every product or article i'm
ported into the United States, no free
list and no discrimination. Carefully
compiled figures by so good an authority
as the New York Sun show that a tariff
based on revenue principles only would
require a uniform duty Of about 4o pc
. cent. This would mean just that mucl
protection to every American manufac
iturer or producer. The Mckinley bill
with only S45, 100000 imports annually Oh
!; the free list, was 1858 per cent; and, as
generally admitted. the revenues wer
rapidly falling short Of the requirement
Of the government, so much SO that a
. approaching presidential election wa
: all that prevented the Harrison admins
: tration from issueing bonds to malntai
y the credit OF the government. Twent
. wears ago; aye, ten years ago, an averag
d tariff Of As per cent would have bee
e thought extremely excessive by tn
most radical protectionists, and we hay
. only to turn to the congressional record
It to ascertain how strenuously further il
crease Of very much lower tariff tina
even the Wilson-Gorham bill we
4 opposed by some Of the most prominer
Republican congressman.
d 1t follows, therefore, that no matt,
, how tariff may be based, and wbeth'
= compiled by Mckinley, Gorham or
n Wilson. heavy duties upon such produc
l. and articles as are produced upon Anne
=, =, ican soil are necessary and must gi,
= = protection. And il we are to believe Il
q protestations OF eminent Republicans
A. congress before Grover Cleveland fore
them to defend their party; If we are
note that our cntlery, our carpets. o