The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1901-07-03

Ugh Tariff Legislation Menace to Our Material prosI
TRUSTS AN ENEMY TO SOUTHERN BUSINESS INrR



be my excuse, if any be needed, TO
this communication.
We have heard much of late abou
the elimination of the negro question
from Southern politics, and the cousc
quent upbullding of q strong Republl
can party in the Southern States, basel
as The rumor runntth, On the further
ance OF our material intercsts-a
though adherence to Democratic pin
clples would retard our progress.
Assuming for the sake of argument
ana that only, that the 'acc issue Is
eliminated, and that the Southern pco-
pie are now entirely free to pursue
their "business" interests, they can
scarcely he expected to sacrifice those
interests by adopting the economic
polcles which, from beginning up to
this date, have characterized the Re
publican party.
1t is serious mistake to suppose
that sentiment alone has controlled in
making the North Republican aud the
South Democratic. Aside from war
passion, now, happily, abated, the Re-
publican party has always adopted an
economic policy that was distinctly
sectional and hostile TO the South. Its
1lrst task was the abolition of slavery,
and no sooner was that accomplished,
at fearful cost to the South, than il he
gan its high tariff policy, which was
less open, but equally effective,
method OF caryi ing on an economic
wal against the South scarcely sur
passed in material hardship by The Re
publican pension policy under which
the South pays her proportion. te share
OF 100000 $50 annually 10 the com
mon treasury, only to see it paid out
among beneliclaries rcsdln. mostly
beyond her borders. Being in the mi.
norty, she could offer no successful re-
sStancc.
Previous to the civil war the average
tariff tate varied from ) per cent. in
lISo, to 70 per cent. III 1916; to 40 per
cent. in 1923 (known as the "rl'ariff of
Abominations'D, to 24 per cent. in.
1872, to ~ per cent. in 1917, and tr
20 per cent. in 1857.
Then came the Republican tariff of
1861, about 3G per cent, Of 1864 50
about AZ per cent. of 1890 about so
per cent, and finally the Dlngley tariff
of 1897, estimated at about 81 per cent
This Republican legislation, espcc-
tally in its inception, was not intended
to benefit the South. Had it borne
equally upon ali sections it would have
failed, in large part, of lis purpose. 1t
was framed by hostile, sectional
party that took special care Of its own
local interests at the expense of the
minority section, though in later wears |
there has been an cagc-ncss to enlist |
recruits by shelteling a few Southern I
products, which are certainly entitled |
to equal favor in whatever dscrimlna- |
tion is to be made now or i'm the fu-
ture. The Federal Congress, with It's
North III majority, will never pass Il
tariff bill in whose special privileges |
the South will be permitted TO partci-
pate on equal terms with the North.
Our beet hope lies in cutting down the
special privileges rather than in trying
to grab our share of the spoils.
Whatever benefits the South may
have derived from the uniformity
clause OF the constitution in reference
to taxation, they were wholly dispro-
portiOnatc to the benefits received by
the North. This disadvantage was
not due to any fault or want of wis
dom on the part of the generation of
Southern people then in life, but to
our social, financial and material en-
vironment, created by forces operating
before that generation was born.
1t is important in this connection to
bear IN mind one of he simplest and
plainest truths of political economy,
namely, that a tariff On imports is in
effect tax on exports.
Whether gwen tariff rate on i'm
ports produces an exactly equivalent |
burden on exports may be open to
doubt, but that tariff tax levied on
goods coming into country lessons
the eXchangcable value of goods going
out of the same country is not denied, |
so far as | am aware, by slnglc rep
utable thinker or writer on the sub
ject. Any business man can make his |
own practical application of this truth.
From that truth it necessarily fol-
lows that tariff OH imports falls with
special severity on those particular in
dustries which furnish the expcrtS
given in exchange for the imports.
What industries have borne this
special burden?
In 1920 agriculture furnished 81 per
cent. of our total exports, and with
slight variations it still furnished in
1880 as high as 1926 per cent. One
of the most important items was the
South's great contribution Of her raw
cotton, which from the first was es-
sentlally an exported product, aud
which was greater in proportion than
the exported product of any other sec
ton.
1t is easy, therefore, to fix the status
of the cotton grower as a burden.bcar
er under the tariff.
But in recent years we have turned
to manufacturing our raw cotton, ard
have already gone beyond the capacity
of the home market. In 1900 our ex-
ports of uncolored cotton goods, such
as we generally make in the South,
amounted to $l3 ,220 ,443.
OF the same kind of cloth we im-
ported only 1857 ,604, mere bagatelle,
showing not only that our mills need
no protection in this line, but that a
tariff rate on these manufactured cot