Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1898-12-02
COL. MosBY ON THE TARIFF.

tOL. MOS6Y ON IdE IAhlFF-
10 the Editor of the Alexandria Gazette:
I have recently read in Richmond
paper that on account of the enormous
exoort trade from the United States
that has been developed the home MAJ
ket has become an obsolete idea, and
the protection theory back number.
The writer, who is free trader, el
though like Balaam "he came to curse"
yet he ''blesses altogether" The op
ponents Of the Dingley bill predicted
that it would destroy our export trade
as people abroad would not buy from
us unless we bought from them. They
thus unconsciously discredited the the
ory that business is business and that
people seek the best markets for what
they have to buy as well as what
they have 10 SELL The fact that we are
now supplying foreign markets is no
proof that we havn't home markets and
are supplying them too. Foreigners
don't buy from Us because we buy from
them but because they need what we
have. Mr.. Blaine's reciprocity scheme
was borrowed from Jetferson's report
on trade when he was Secretary OF
State. If we were still agricultural and
pastoral communities and without man-
ufactures, there would be no hone
market for farmers and we would buy
our shirts in England, as our fore
fathers did. A protective tariff has
not only furnished revenue for the
government but has encouraged and
developed manufacturing industries TO
such an extent that we now export
what we formerly imported, and COM
mand both our own and foreign mar
keta. The same paper that declared d
the D;ngley bill failure stated that
seventeen locomotives had just been
shipped By q manufacturing company
in Richmond to Finland A few years
ago the United States derived large
revenue from theduties on ironand steel;
we are now e1portiug iron, and steel
and have turned the currents of trade
in other directions. Andrew Carnegie
recently said in public speech that
steel can be produced cheaper in Pitts
burg that anywhere in the world ex
cept, probably, Alabama. People who
make steel are at the same time con
suuers of -four, beef, and pork and in
his way protection not only supplies
but creates a home market. But the
question is asked. If we Can now pro-
duce iron and steel cheaper than other
countries what need is there of protec
ton? The question can be answered by
asking aDother-What harm can duty
on iron and steel do when we have
ceased to import and are now export
ing both to foreign markets? The OBJ
lection always urged against duties on
imports is that they increase the cost to
consumers. But articles that can be
produced cheaper at home will not be
| imported. II there are 20 imports
there can be no duties But for the
stimulus TO manufacturers of a protect
i've tariff we would have nothing to ex-
/! port but hogs and wheat. Of course
great merchants, who have made mil
lions by importing foreign goods. don't
like to see their business ruined by do
mestic manufacturers even if the wealth
of the nation is increased. By diversi'
fying our industries the country has
grown to be rich and independent.
There is a greet deal of nonsense talked
about tariff for revenue and tariff
for protection. Any tariff that brings
revenue into the Treasury ls tariff for
revenue. Congress has discretion ss
to the method of laying duties. Il can
admit some things free, like coffee,
which does not grow here, or 1t can
put duty, as England does, on coffee.
Such duty is not protective because
we do not raise coffee. A duty on iron
and steel is protective because at hrst
the duty raises the price, but at the
same time it stimulates production,
which gradually lowers the price.
Prices will be regulated by compeii'
ton. There are 60 monopolies IN the
United States except patents to lnven-
tors. A monopoly is an exclusive
privilege granted by the State. Man
ufactories are spread all over the coun'
trv, and are free for all. The mere
| personal motive a congressman may
have in voting is immaterial and no
test of the constitutionality OF meas
ure. Men often vote for the same
thing from different motives. AS long
as the constitution allows duties on
imports it is perfectly constitutional to
discriminate among them, to admit
some free and levy duties on others.
Protection is simply an incident to the
duty. Customs duties are called taxes;
why ANYBODY should object to getting
an Incidental benefit from a necessary
evil it is hard to see. Appropriations
have been made to build torpedo boats.
anyISe PREPARATIONS simply de.