New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-25
PRINCIPLES. NOT DETAILS.

Two statements regarding the tariff Of 1890
were made by this paper some months ago which
The Bulletin" Of the Iron and Steel Association
thinks inconsistent. There Is no occasion for
earnest advocates OF Protection 10 fall into any
dispute about details But II may serve good
purpose to point out that the two statements
are consistent, and both may well be kept in
mind. One was that 1t would be foolish TO as
sumo that particular rate OF duty must be wise
or necessary now because that rate was deemed
necessary In 1890. The other was that no man
could afford to seek public support this year on
the claim that he did not want to protect Indus
tries as much as they were protected by the
act OF 1890. Both statements appear TO be
worthy Of repetition
To protect industries rs much they were
protected by the act of 1890 may require higher
duties to-day on some articles. but lower on
others because conditions Of production and
trade here and abroad have materially changed.
II a foreign product now costs 50 cents. but for
merly cost 100 cents, the cost OF the correspond
Ing domestic product being unchanged, specific
duty Of 20 cents now would mean exactly the
same protection which was afforded by specific
duty Of % cents six years ago. Or II the cost
Of the product in this country has been reduced
20 per cent by improvements the cost abroad
being unchanged and as low as IL can probably
be put, about 60 per cent OF the former cost
here In that case duty equivalent TO third
Of the foreign cost would be just as effective
now as a duty Of two-thlrds was six years ago
In precisely the same way changes adverse to
the Industries OF this country may require high
or duties now, In order to secure exactly the
same measure Of protection, than were required
six years ago.
Rates may change, and details, and all the
conditions governing competition between our
own and other manufactures But the prin-
cIple to be steadily kept In view does not change
The Tribune astonished some Democrats by de-
claring in 1890, after pointing out some errors
in the Mckinley act, that 1t was, on the whole
the brnvest and wisest tariff ever framed In this
country. The action Of the people indicates that
after more than five years they have come to
the same conclusion. But the act was brave
and wise because 1t met the conditions which
existed at that time. To frame an act equally
brave and wise to-day would require different
duties on many articles, but duties governed
all the time by the same principle 1t was the
object Of the act Of 1890 to give better protec-
ton than had ever been given, more impartial
and more extended protection to the industries
upon which the wages and livelihood of Ameri-
can workers depend. The same object will gov
ern, 1t Is safe to say, when the next Republican
Congress prepares measure to be submitted
to a Republican President. 1t Is an essential
element that duties shall be 80 graduated as to
meet probable changes in the course Of foreign
markets and industries, and to prevent as far as
possible the defeat of protection by fraudulent
undervaluations 1t Is to be expected that duties
wholly specific, and not partly ad valorem, will
be found necessary now as to some goods, In
order to thwart the methods Of differentiation
devised within six years
1t would be frivolous waste of effort to 1t.