The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1897-06-29

tax on manufactures is wrong, and
legislation can not be procured to re-
move 1T atoncc, why cripple the manu-
iacturer with such rates as will raise
Tie nome price SO high as to be more
1urdensOmc on the people aud
him from competing with foreigner.
In the outside markets ? No en-
lghteneu nation on the globe taxes
raw material used in manufactures.
II revenue Is sought, why seek it
through II channe that %cripples the
manufacturing industry, prevents eE-
pansion, and denies labor an oppor-
tunlty to work
ii revenue Is wanted and not prOtec-
ZION by "a tax on manufactured articles,
Is 1T absurd to tax the raw materials
out OF which they are made Either
the raw mat rials must be imported or
they are produced 1t home. In the
first case II compcnsatiug duty is neces-
sary or you discriminate against the
manufactures by the amount of the
duty on the raw material, and in the
second The duty is useless.
"A Democrat ought not to sustain "a
of tax on a material. If on the around
protcctioL, he violates his partvscreed:
II Tor revenue, he doubles the tax
on the people. The trus theory
Is to lax neither the competing for
SiSh Manufactured arLlClG nor OF
the raw material Of the home manu-
lacIure. But If the selection is to be
made Tor revenue purposes between a
tax on the raw material Of the home
manufacturer and the competing
foreign article, clearly the latter is to
be taKcn. If the raw material j.
taxed, you must place an equivalent
duty on the finished product or YOU I'M
Justly discriminate against the home
manufacturer.
IL Doth the raw material and the
h1lSned product are taxed, ana the
prlnclple Is carried out all along the
me, the burdens on the people are
doubled, and in the am OF ruvcnuc :,
wal Oh protection Is built up around
the country.
| che object is to bottle up the in
dusurIcs Of the United States in orr
own borders, Il tax on raw materials,
added TO a cOmpensating duty, accom-
pllshCS 1T. Piacing u duty on raw
materials hanuicapS our manufacturers
In foreign markets, even when a com
pcnsuting duty is levied.
To rccoup he lust add the duty on
The raw material to The selling price
oil the manufactured article. This he
can not 90 in Il foreign market. against
/; foreign competitor who has free raw
.'"oSi i"iS' lou pace MIN on an
equality with the foreigner in the
home market by q compcnsating duty,
and you destroying him in the foreign
market. You invite competition a,
home, ana you destroy his chance OF
competing abroad.
The propositions that duties must be
levied ali along the line that if plum.
derlng Is the order OF the day we mus,
JON me gang hat no principle is in.
Volvcd in the tarlti Issue, but it is a
mere question OF arranging schedules,
would seem TO be refuLcd by theil
statement.
Sir, precedent and principle alik;
reiutc these propositions. Veteran
Democrats who were born and will die
with true Democratic faith in thci,
mi huS and hearts repudiaLe them.
Ihey look upon them as an attempt
to cruelty their creed. And like Lbe
Christian who embraces the ina : oI
hlsn ruc,iicd Saviour as the last hour
OF mortality approaches, so will they
eln and cling to, with q love and
ierVor and faith which no soDhistrv
can destroy and no temptation netrav,
the ancient doctrine of tariff for re.
only as the nearest approach
to that free trade hoped for by the
Democrats Of Oh.
Sir, is it possible that we dcnouncc
plundcr only TO join the p%lundcrcrs
that we point 10 the straight and
honest path Of Democratic duty and
the tread the primrose path of Re.