The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-09-30
pRorHcTIoNIsn UNMAsKED

AIvOAAS 10 eAAC u - vs. iASAAc Va WV = SOPAO
PRoTHCTIONISn UNMAsKED
Advocates of protectionism are gen srally
20 blinded or befogged by the sophistries
Of that theory. that they fail to discern
many Of the plainest facts bearing on the
subject. Hence they continually harp
IN the beneficial results of the protec-
tive SYSTEM" without stopping to inquire
uho are the benefcaries of those good
results. 1t can easily be seen that pro-
tsctive tariffs benefit pecuniarily, though
not msrally, very few persons, and that
they are those who least need protection
by legislation, even If 1t were right for
the government to confer special priv.
leges on any class of citizens rich or
poor, which it is not. Edward Akin
son, who, though often faulty in his
logic, is considered good authority in
statistics, declares that only one in ten
persons among the entire population of
the United States derives any benefit from
the protective system. This, of course,
means that nine persons aru taxed (rob-
bed) for the benefit of the one other per-
son. But even if the figures could be TO-
versed, the principle at the foundation OF
the system would still be wrong. The
government has no more moral right to
tax one person to aid nine, than 1t has
to tax nine for the pupose of helping one.
The principle involved Is wrong in either
case. The claim made by champions of
ypecial privileges that protectonsm is a
blessing to the whole people is the YER
lest rot. Not single fact can be found
to substantive that absurd claim. No
people can be benefited by having their
natural rights chained down or tied up.
One natural right of every man is the
right to trade when, where and with
whom he may please. so long as he does
not interfere with the natural rights of
any one else. All the civil governments
ON earth cannot abolish this right, how
ever much they may interfere with the
exercise of it.
But let us see what the United States
supreme court has said relative to taxing
communities for the benefit of private
parties. The celebrated Topeka case is
one exactly IN point. Most people who
read up on tariff matters have probably
heard of the case, but few, we presume,
have ever given it Especial attention and as
certained what the court said in its decis.
ion. The case was entitled "The Citi-
zens' Savings and Loan Association of
Cleveland, o., plaintiff in error, VS.. To-
peka CITY," The city of Topeka, Kas.,
had issued bonds for $1oU. 700 as a dona-
ton TO the King Wrought Iron Bridge
Manufacturing and Iron Works company
OF Topeka to aid and encourage that COM
pany IN establishing and operating bridge
shops there. The loan association bought
the bonds and subsequently brought suit
in the United States circuit court of the
district of Nebraska. An act of the Kansas
legislature authorized the city council to
call an election for such purpose, which
was done, but the supreme court decided
that act OF the legislature unconstitu-
tional. The court said: "The power to
tax is the strongest. the most pervading of
all the powers of the governments. reach
ing directly or indirectly to all classes of
people," ''Of all the powers con-
ferred upon government that Of taxation
is most liable to abuse. Chief Justice
Marshall said the power to tax is the
power to destroy. To lay with one hand
the power of the government on the prop
erty OF the citizen and with the other to
bestow it upon favored individuals to aid
private enterprises and build fortunes is
none the less robbery because done under
the forms OF law and called taxation.
There can be no lawful tax which is not
laid for public purpose. If it be SAID
that benefit results to the local public
OF town by establishing manufactures
the sams may be said of any other bust
ness or pursuit which employs capital or
labor. The merchant, the mechanic, the
Inn keeper, the banker. the builder, tn g
steamboat owner, are equally prom oters
OF the public good and equally deserving
OF the aid of the citizens by forced con-
tribution. No line can be drawn in favor
of the manufacturer which would not
open the Golfers OF the public treasury to
the opportunities OF two-thirds of the bus
mess men of the city or town.
This decision, rendered in 1875 by the
highest judicial tribunal in the land,
strikes direct blow at tho protective
theory, as the same principle is involved,
although the case was one concerning a
eity and one private corporation instead
OF the people OF the whole United States
and numerous corporations ana private
interests. That lis the only difference.
and 1t is entirely non-essential.
In the light OF such decision what lie.
gal ground has protectionism to stanc
on? None whatever. As for moral ground
1t never had any and never can nave any
The complete unmasking of the protec-
tive system SO that everybody can clear
ly understand its nature and purposes is
all that is needed to insure its com plete
overthrow.
As near as we can make out from an
intermittent perusal, by installments, O
the sugar beet editorials of our esteemed
contemporary. Messrs. Oxnard g. Co. O.
Chino are making a poor mouth abou