The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-06-15
A CONTRADICTORY PROTECTION
IST.

Last summer a little boy from an in
| land town was in San Francisco. HIS
mother took him out to the Cliff house
and he was overawed and greatly i'm
pressed as he saw the mighty waves
come rolling in. And when he broke
the silence that was upon him he ex-
claimed: 'Oh, mama, mama; I've dis
| covered the ocean, I've discovered the
ocean,
The Tribune, like that little boy on
the sea shore, thinks it discovered the
ocean when it says it long since show
| ed wherein protection and Dingleyisrl
differ, difference that does not ex-
list
The other day The Herald published
and commented on an editorial that
appeared in the Philadelphia Ledger
| in which it was held that the Dingley
law is a horrible perversion of the true
principle. of protection. We maintain
ed that Dingleyism is nothing more nor
less than the legitimate result of pro-
| tectionism Our contemporary says it
explained all that matter long ago, and
it then goes on to tell about how
England waxed- fat and sassy under
the protective system, and why she
adopted her free trade policy. That
| is all very good, only our contemporary
! ignores the fact that England has
waxed much fatter and sassier since
she threw aside her protective policy
than she did before. Then our contem-
porary says:
Three times she swamped the United
States and left this country desolate-
Three times the tariff restored the
country.
But in the meantime the influence of
her capital class, working upon the
same class in this country, caused the
adoption of a financial policy on our
side which had stranded the producers
of this country. In this situation the
election of 1896 came on. One side
promised that the tariff would restore
prosperity Then the Tribune pointed
out that no just protective tariff could
do any such thing, for the success OF 2
tariff depended upon the prosperity OF
a people, and their ability to purchase
foreign goods; that if a tariff could be
levied to raise a given amount of rev.
enue under the conditions prevailing,
it would have to sacrifice the whole
spirit on which a protective tariff is
founded. and that no tariff could begin
to restore prosperity until the finances
of the country should be put upon an
honest and sensible basis.
We confess we do not know when
England swamped the United States
three or any other number of times.
Possibly our contemporary would
designate the enactment of some tariff
measure by congress as an instance of
swapping. seeing that it says the tariff
restored the country three times. If
this surmise be right. then the Wilson
German tariff probably would be one
of the times when the United States
were swamped by England. If this be
so, then why does not the Dingley law
now restore the country?
Our contemporary makes one of the
most remarkable admissions we have
ever seen by a paper that processes adj
herence to the principles of protection.
It says it has pointed out that no just
protective tariff could do any such
thing (restore prosperity, for the sue
cess of a tariff depended upon the pros
perity of people, and their ability to
purchase foreign goods" That is prac-
tically the position of those who say
that the only justification of a tariff is
for the purpose of raising revenue The
position of the protectionist is that a
tariff creates prosperity by excluding
foreign goods and reserving the home
market to the domestic producer. How
does this position of our1eontemporary
agree with the one it took earlier in the |
same article? 1t says:
A protective tariff is a most neces-
sary measure to all new countries, |
where much machinery is needed and |
the rates of wages are generous.
But our contemporary offers no ar
gument to show that Dingleyism is not |
the legitimate fruit of the principle of |
protection. 1t is the work IF the Re-
publican party, performed in pursuance
of the declarations of the st. Louis /
platform. Will our contemporary claim !
that the Republican party has strayed |
from the true Republican doctrine of
protection as well as from the true Re-
publican doctrine of finance? 1t should !
honestly confess that it is the Injun
and not the wickiup that is lost.