The Washington times., 1901-08-22

err rates. and have favored putting GER
tain additional articles on the free list.
During the debate in the House on
the Mills bill, Speaker Carlisle took the
floor and made a strong speech, show
ing the remarkable prosperity which
followed the passage of the Walker
tariff of 1876, which was a Democratic
measure. Neither of these facts could
he disputed, and therefore the Repub-
leans regarded Mr.. Carlisle's speech as
Il most dangerous one. So Mr.. La Fol-
lette was put forward to answer it.
This he did by showing. and truthfuliy.
that the Walker tariff was not "A free
trade measure. The answer might have
been a good one, if the question at issue
had been directly between protection on
the one hand and free trade en- the
other. But the Mills bill was not>a free
trade measure either. Probably upon
close examination it would be found to
be considerably more protective than
the Walker tariff was. So the Woods
tariff. the Morrison bill. and the Will
son law all provided for what was be
lieved to be the full measure of protec-
ton that our industries required.
Doubtless some of their features We're
open to criticism. That is true Of all
tariffs, for they are made to cover
many thousands of different articles.
In the worst tariff ever enacted there
We're some good provisions. and in the
best tariff ever proposed there were
some bad ones. But all of this is apart
from the main question.
The real attitude of the Democratic
party has been in favor of tariff reform
of reduction of duties, and not of
absolute free trade. The Republicans
have carried the principle of protection
10 TIE most outrageous lengths, allow
ing each industry practically to deter
mine for itself just what tariff should
be imposed upon foreign products of
the same industry. The result has been
the upbuilding of gigantic monopolies,
and the robbery of the people by the ex-
tortionate prices which the tariff has
permitted to be charged.
In opposing these unjust tariffs many
Democratic orators have permitted
their enthusiasm and Indignation so far
to color their language that they could
with some degree of fairness be accused
of mating free trade speeches. This
has been done freely, and the ground
less fear of out-and-out free trade had
much to do with the Republican vic
tories of 1889 and 1883. In politics as in
law many good causes are lost through
bad augmentation; and in dealing with
the tariff Democratic leaders cannot be
too careful in stating their position and
saying exactly what they mean They
are in reality striking at the abuses of
be squarely directed to that end. 1t is
idle to make theoretical free trade ar
suments when no free trade is meant
or is practicable. The only effect of
such arguments is to array all the pro-
tected interests on the side of the Re-
publican party. and to make Demo-
cratic success extremely doubtful.
The country is full of people who can
or think they can make good argu-
applied to American industrial condi-
tons; but no man can make even col
orable showing in favor of a grave pub
lie abuse, and everybody ought to know
that the tariff is full of them. The
greatest of these is the protection af-
forded to industries that have out
grown the need of i; and which as
result have been absorbed by huge
monopolies that virtually have the
Government by the throat and the great
consuming public at their mercy.