Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-06-12

Il
ter wage. and thereby become the
| greater consumer Of the results Of his
reighbors toll, and that the employer
Of labor shall be able both to pay this
greater wage, and, at the same time,
| find ready market for his product. The
| other insists that the American con-
sumner is worthy of the cheapest arti-
| cles obtainable, and that 1t is a matter
| of small concern who produces them,
provided they are cheap. The one leg
islates admittedly for the producer
artisan and farmer-believing that IL
these are secured proper returns for
| their toll. they will furnish the best
| and most exhaustless market for each
| other and with the surplus of their
product, maintain an abundant foreign
| commerce. The other legislates pro-
| fessedly for the consumer. and proceeds
| upon the theory that il he shall be pro-
| tected against exorbitant prices for the
product of labor forgetting that cheap
| product necessitates cheap labor he,
! the consumer, will be necessarily pros
porous and happy.
And it must be admitted, 1 think,
that both political parties are able to
show results-and by results they
should be judged. The protective prin-
ciple has always brought high-priced
labor and high prices for the products
Of labor. together with a large and
ever-increasing foreign commerce, the
balance of trade from which has made
the nation wealthy beyond compare:
while a tariff for revenue only has
never failed to produce cheap labor and
cheap products of labor. But instead
of this rendering the consumer pros
porous and happy, it has invariably
driven both capital and labor out of
business. The reason lies not in the
character of candidates, but in the cor
rectness of principles. The one is log
ically right and invariably brings bene-
ficent results. 1t never did fail and 1t
never can fail The other is illogical,
false and vicious. and as invariably
brings our people-artisan and farmer,
capitalist and toiler-employer and en-
ployed-not only to the brink, but alb
solutely over the precipice of ruin.
Please do not say am unkind. As good
men as | know in the world, and as
good friends as l have on earth believe
these vicious principles. Having learned
them as children they advocate them
in manhood, and recount their fmag-
ined virtues in dOtage.
1t is not certain, however, that the
issue this fall will be tariff reform.
But we have had quite heightened
period of unprecedented prosperity, and
if 1 read history correctly, our people
have seldom been able to stand pros
perity very long. We have mutterings
here and there even now. / understand
that the people Of New England quite
generally believe that the tariff on
hides ought to be removed, but L have
never heard of their advocating a re-
duction of the tariff on shoes or knit
goods. Those west of the Mississippi
river have expressed themselves occa-
sionally as being in favor Of a reduce
ton of the tariff on iron and steel and
lumber: in fact upon all the so-calied
trust-protected products except sugar
and meat. Michigan, Wisconsin and
Minnesota would be excusable should
they ask reduction Of the tariff on
glass and steel, and they would be
equally excusable for not asking a re-
duction on lumber and iron ore. The
laborers in the coal mines and factories
of Pennsylvania and West Virginia
very naturally demand free access to
the chaper markets Of Canada and
South America for meat, but 1 have
not heard of their asking free trade
with Nova Scotia for coal. or with Eu-
rope for manufactured iron. rs
Probably. every man in the United
States would change. if he could, the
duty on dozen or more items. but
comparatively few would agree on the
items. General Hancock was not en-
tirely wrong when he declares the tar
if a local issue. Neither was he alto
gether right. The tariff principle is a
national issue. Its application to spe-
cific items composing the schedule is
always local. Hence. so soon as the
interests of any given state or commu-
nifty are assailed by bill to revise the
tariff upon those articles which it pro-
duces, it invaria bly, retaliates by pro-
posing a reduction on other items
which it consumes but does not pro-
duce. until very soon a revision of the
entire schedule is under consideration,
and business Suspends pending pro-
tracted debate. Perhaps more people
would vote to reduce the tariff on glass,
manufactured iron, wool and meat than
on any other four items, but unfortu-
nately those who would reduce on glass
and iron would not generally reduce on
wool and meat; and if the producers Of
wool and meat were to unite in an eff
fort to secure free trade In glass and
iron. they would find twice as many. by
actual count, who would fight to the
bitter end for free wool and free meat
Because of special and peculiarly in
innate relations Congress has been for
months considering reciprocity prop
osition by which it is proposed to grant
Cuba a reduction of 20 per cent. from
the Dingley tariff. This will affect lit
tie if anything other than tobacco and
sugar, and yet it met very strong OPP
position, but protected by rules 1t pass
ed the lower House. What will be
done in the Senate am not here to ad-
wise nor predict. / only refer to it for
the sake of propoundiug the following
proposition which is not subject to de-
by the rule of three: If IL
takes from December until July to pass
an act granting our own and well-be-
loved child 20 per cent. reduction on
tobacco and sugar how long will it take
to revise the entire tariff schedule?
(Continuad IN pape 5N