St. Paul daily globe., 1896-03-30
WHAT A HUMBUG.

For three years past the Republican
party has based it's whole assault upon
Democratic policies, and it's appeal to
the American people to reverse them,
upon the statement that Democratic
changes in our tariff laws are the sole
cause of Industrial depression. That Is
the only issue upon which it asks to be
restored to power. and Mr.. Mckinley
has become its logical candidate as rep
| resenting 1t. The voters have been
told, from one end Of the country to the
ether, that the carrying out Of free
trade ideas, by the tariff law now in
effect, has sacrificed revenue and de-
| stroyed or crippled industries beyond
the power of anything short of a gen.
eral and large increase in tariff duties
to repair. How many of the plain peo-
pie of the country, we wonder, have
looked into the figures and are familiar
with the actual proportions of the tariff
reduction accomplished under the Cor
man act.
The New York Times presents some
figures which expose very neatly the
astonishing humbug Of the Republican
claim. The annual average Of all du-
ties on foreign imports, outside Of the
free list, for the four years in which the
Mckinley act was in force, was 4S 66
per cent. The average rate on dutiabIe
goods actually imported under the pres
ent tariff is 41.75. In the year 1894. in
which a Republican tariff was in force
one which had just been readjusted
carefully by Republican administra-
ton, the average rate Of duty was Al 81
per cent. The Times argues yerv ner.
tinently: IF 1895 per cent was protec-
ton, is 41.75 per cent free trader" We
see from these figures that the total
decrease of the average tariff rate ac-
complished by the tariff revision of the
fllty-th1rd congress was less than per
cent. In the earlier days Of the repub-
lie, When. if ever, protection was most
necessary to the building up of infant
industries, tariff ranging from 10 to
~ per cent would have been considered
excessive. 1t was only the necessities
or raising revenue for war purposes
that made possible the great advance
in tariff duties at the time of the War
OF the Rebellion, and since. The coun-
try was subjected to an enormous bur-
den for which there was no longer anv
excuse, which served only to roll I'm
immense fortunes for it's favored bene-
hclaries, and from whose exactions the
people demanded relief.
The partial and altogether too limited
response Of the last congress was a. re-
duction which, as we see, amounted
TO only II of the highest rates impos-
ed; namely, those levied by the McKin-
ley act After that change had been
made there remained a protection of
more than 40 per cent on the whole
range of imported goods. Not only is
that true, but the official report shows
that this percentage is calculated on q
lloeral basis, since the value of free i'm
ports was less in 1895 than in any one
OF the four years Immediately preced-
ing. 1t is seldom that those who are ar
guing hotly for and against the protec-
1--WE principle condescend to come down
to facts and figures. The people have
been told that millions Of dollars were
lost, and hundreds Of industries threat
ened with extinction by the Democratic
| I.I-
slash1ng Of tariff rates. On the con-
trary, the inexcusable error of the
present tariff act is that it is thorough.
ly protective, and the average of duties
Which 1t levies is probably quite double
the amount that would cover the differ
ence between cost Of production here
and abroad, including the difference in
the wages Of labor.
Our panic and our business losses
are due exclusively to the extrav-
agant expenditures foisted upon
the country by a prodigal Repub-
llcan congress, and by its financial pol
ICY which has shaken the foundations
OF commercial interests and involved
the nation in universal distrust. When
ever Republican speaker or newspa-
per tells the people that the country has
suffered from Democratic free trade
let the reply be the simple question
whether an average change Of less than
z per cent in excessive duties is compe-
tent to produce such effects; and wheth-
er an average tariff of 41.75 is free
trade, or even an approach to it?