The Portland daily press., 1897-04-30
Tariff.
Tariff.
To the Editor of the Press:

ted to a wrong policy. That is it re-
ouires a knowledge Of what the people
want. OF will probably vote for, then,
making the issue, leave nothing for the
otter party to do except to take the op-
posits side. The practical result ia that
one party becomes an intelligent force,
while the other, which thrives alone on
the IN istakes of it's opponent, is an oooas-
ionaI accident. If the democracy ever
had the happy faculty Of Intentionally
taking the popular side 1t has failed to
exhibit it for many years. 1t has rarely
been the first to adopt great national
issue, hut bas. almost invariably, fol-
lowed its old time policy of waiting to
be put in the wrong. This has heen its
record on the silver question, which it
borrowed from tile Populists. on civil
service refom, on the tariff and every
other leading issue since it helped to
boost the Republican party into pow er
though its position on the slavery ques-
ton. 1t will be- Its position, in the next
Presidential campaign, If the Dinaley
tariff bill passes. In general way, the
Democrats have no other policy on tariff
than that of opposition, hut they can see
a reason for this, in the next national
campaign, upon which they may ground
the hops of success. 1t il the hope that
the result Will be the same as that fol-
lowed by the Mckinley tariff. They
will be disappointed unless ,tnriff is the
predominating issue. There is little
reason to suppose it will be-. Aside fro m
the fact that the peopls are becoming
aware OF the truth that tariff has as little
to do with the laws governing trade as
demon citation has to do with low
prices, SO many new questions have arisen
within the past ten years, questions, as
yet unsettled, that the prospect is that
the next national issue will be of SO
complex character that the people, as
usual. will fail to understand 1t, and the
the heaviest calibre. as displayed in it's
representative fuen, will win the day.
While it may always be good politics to
conceal the real question. SO that the
people may not know what they are vot-
irg fer. the Democratic leaders have rare
" been guilty of such diplomacy. The
evidence of the past few years goss to
how that they have not un derstood 1t
themselves. The question of tariff has
held the position of standard issue.
Can any man define tina Democratic posi-
ton On tariff, leaving the narrow margin
of differences between Repu blican and
10 arpt 10 for hi ~ thn rrI1o
ton? The Democratic tariff policy, as
far as il can be understood, would clearly
com II it the party. today, to the support
of the Dingley bill. or bill of like char
acter. or to clearer exclamation Of how
to reconcile it's free trade theories with a
tariff for revenue, and tariff for reve-
nue. with it's opposition to \ tariff for
protection. This they will find it diff
cult to do. How far would tie Demo.
Far enough. of oorsrse, to relieve the gov
eminent when running behind on ex-
pensss This would call for q high pro-
tective tariff, as the relief of government
and the business interests of the country
would certainly he oo-tncident. What IL
the differen ce, in effect, between ga tariff
for revenue only" and the measurable
protection which such q t8riH would
give? What do the Democrats mean by
advocating com bined tariff fol revenue
and protection. and no tariff at allp Or
is the tariff a purely s'local' question
because the West may want DUTY on
one thing, and the Fast, on another? In
what way does this affect the matter of
tariff as system. or Sc ienoe, or does the
Democracy believe in fFee-revenue-
protective tariff because the opposite
policy, if it could lie defined, would be
a hardship ON the peopleP That the con-
| sumer pays the duty Is understood. But
any tariff, either for revenue or protec-
tion, is measurable burden on the peo-
pie. enhancing the price of all dutiable
articles bought. The burden is unim-
portant compared to the stimulus given
to home enterprises, and NO class of
people reaps the benefit Of protection in
so great q measure as the laboring class,
in being free. or comparatively. free. from
the ompetition of foreign labor. For
this reason, il no other, the Democrats
should favor protection. No system of
tariff, however. can be perfect, and no
tariff can be operative without helping,
or generating, Inonopolies. The best that
Congress can do Is to avoid, as far rs pos
sible, the evils arising from the system,
by aiming for the general good. Large
working capital has far more to do with
monopoly than tariff of any kind or de-
gree. There is room for improvement in
all legislation and, on the whole, when
tho tariff is pretty nearly right 1t hnd
better be let alone except when, as now,
an increase Of revenue is imperatively de-
manded. The tariff fence, in ordinary
times, should be built just high enoug b
to keep out foreign competition, MS home
competition may safely be relied on to
keep prices down. The bare necessities
of life have rarely been eheaper than to-
day, and eygry business man, through
severe competition, and in thu struggle
to keep his own footing, ia helping to
keep prices low. l fail to nee what bear
ing tariff has on present business condi-
lions. and it Is true that while tariff has
everything to do with the establishing
of business enterprises, the protection of
trade from foreign composition, 1t has
little to do. either rs a..cause or a remedy
of or for hard times, except las pnrty
issue. 1t is mischievous element in
politics, and politicians, from time i'm
| memorial, have entered 1t in the national
races, not because it was promising
| horse, but because it was the only one
/ eft in the stalls. AS a political issue.
merely. tariff, while apparently possess
| ing all tho points of q race horse, is a
"fool killer" 1t is "a humbug as a
ready cnre for present huriness evils, and
soarecrow in its effect on the sensitive
/ t.v,<i