New-York tribune., 1896-11-30
PLANS TO PREVENT PROTECTION.

More than thirty wears ago the Republicans
abolished the duties on tea and coffee on the
ground that these articles of universal cOnsump-
tjon of which tho wealthest consume even less
per CAPITA than the poorest ought not to se DUR
dpned with duties in preference 10 ether artl-
cles which this country is able 10 produce. so
that duties thereon operate as encouragement
TO home industry. AT that point was drawn the
distinctive line Of separation between the Free
Trader who would put taxes on the working
mans breakfast table in order 10 avoid stlmtl-
lating home industry. and the Protectlonlst'
who prefers duties that help home industry ana
do not render articles Of general consumption
more costly. About the rates to he imposed on
different articles, the choice between different
objects Of duty belonging TO the same class. FRO
tectionsts may differ from other Protecilonis's.
and Free Traders from other Free Traders but
there has been no time when the whole body OF
Free Traders was not disposed TO tax the poor
mans breakfast table In order to avoid imposing
duties on manufactured goods imported.
Exactly the same principle was involved in the
removal Of duties on sugar in 1880 and in their
imposition by the Free Traders in 1894 in order to
make nossible q reduction of ST. 2OOOOOO in duties
on manufactured products. Whether the sugar
duty NAV hereafter he considered protectlv" III
character in view of the considerable develop
ment and great promise of the beet-sugar indus
try. is different question; but in 1S'D the en-
couragement of home production by direct
bounty was preferred. while in 1884 the duty
on sugar was imposed avowedly because 1t was
considered not protective in character ms
brief statement of the principles which have
governed the two opposing pa.ti IS for twenty
years will suffice To show why men OF RepuD
l,can convictions cannot be expected TO approve
duties on tea and coffee while many important
Industries ,angush because inadequately pro
.ected.
The increasc of the tax on beer has been long
advocated by Free Traders for the same reason
II would take away a reason Tor part ci me du'y
on manufactured products. Bat Ii has never
been proposed by Free-Trade statesmen or poll
,cians. nor have they dared to attempt it when
in power, because they would not affront large
body Of voters to whom the brewers and the
sellers would readily make such Il tax appear
most obnoxious Ii does not matier tlla; the in
creased duty would Ia fact be paid by the brew
era and the sellers. and need ioi advance the
selling price Of bcci iy 4 single half cent The
organized forces interested tC make such an in
crease OF t9x appear in the last degree offensive
are well known. The fact that the voters who
would be likely TO he thus Influenced are numer-
Gus encug., TO tIlIi the scale IN several great
States. which no party desires to abandon, is
a!so well kEown. 1t Is now about thlrty-two
years since the tax on becr was fixed al It's pres
cnt figure. and in all the changes Of taxation
since attempted. sometimes hy one party and
sometimes by the other, neither has made seri-
Gus effort TO alter this particular tax. II IS safe
to say that it viii not be changed this year or
next. and would not be il the question were left
exclusively to the Congressman Of either party.
These measures are not proposed with any