The herald., 1898-02-28
WANT TO MAKE IT PERPETUAL

The American Economist is the sub
sidized organ of the protected industries
of this country, it's chief mission being
to provide the country journals through
out the United States with tariff litera-
ture. In this field it has long supplied
a want felt by the rural press for point
ers and suggestions touching the beau
ties of "protection to American labor
and American industries" The expense
of the publication is apportioned among
the manufacturers most largely bene-
flied by the imposition of customs
duties. and we must concede that the
journal constitutes very profitable
propaganda.
In it's columns from week to week
may be found, as perhaps nowhere else
the ultra views entertained by that class
of alleged political economists who are
so wanting in confidence in American
skill that they would build wall around
about every domestic mill and factory,
in order to protect their products from
the possible competition of foreign work
men, and who would, if they could, re-
strain the home consumer from pur-
chasing any commodity not bearing the
label of the American Protective Tariff
league.
The Economist has been pretty busy
of late in explaining the failure OF the
new tariff law as revenue producer,
In assuring its readers that it will make
a better exhibit after awhile, and in
showing how little it has had to do with
the industrial prostration in New Eng
land. But it found room in late issue
for a communication from one X. A.
Benedict, advocating constitutional
amendment prohibiting any change in
the schedules of the present tariff law,
in the direction Of lower duties for
twenty years! The Watertown Times
having made a plea for stability in the
duties, this correspondent adds:
The path toward more protection
should never be obstructed. Condi-
tions abroad might so change in twen-
ty years as to destroy many Ameri-
can industries, unless higher duties
were lnDOS0Q. buI lCIbs9 lHC PAIN
toward free trade should be erected
a Gibraltar wall of obstruction. And
why should not this be done by
constitutional amendment? If the
thing should be proposed and thor
oughly agitated, it would be sur
prising to see what an enor-
nous majority of all the hard
working and home-loving people of the
country would approve it. Its oppo-
nents would make a dreadful noise.
You might think by their racket that
they were millions in numbers. A very
little boy can make a very large noise
with a bass drum, and handful of
free traders, with a few subsidized
newspapers, can make the thoughtless
believe they are numberless. But oh!
when they stand up to be counted
after the issue has been squarely made
between protection and free trade,
what a sickly and simple little clique
they are!
This explosion need cause no appre-
hension. The present tariff law is not
likely to be disturbed for some time,
unless it's authors are forced to revise
some of its schedules, in the direction
Of lower duties, in order to provide reve-
nues adequate to the requirements of
the government eXtravagantly admin
istered. 1t is the most iniquitoue en-
actment ever placed upon the statute
books, but there are reasons why no
effort should be made at this time, nor
yet in the immediate future, to replace
it with law that shall give promise
Of benefiting interests that are not syn
dicated. 1t is a question that must not
again be permitted to becloud the one
great issue which the American people
are determined shall be settled by their
ballots in the next two succeeding cam
paigns. This out of the way, other re-
forms, only second in Importance, will
follow easily and naturally. The authors
and sponsors for the Dingley law claim
that sufficient time has not elapsed to
demonstrate its revenue e-producing ca
pabilities or its efficiency in the direction
of stimulating industrial activity. The
opponents of the doctrine, especially in
view Of the fact that they cannot be
held responsible for it's shortcomings.
are willing to take them at their word:
they are willing that the law should