Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1903-08-29

|
| A discussion that promises good re-
suits has followed the contention OF the
| New York Tribune that the Dingley
| tariff law cannot be regarded as a
covenant of agreement or contract be-
tween the government on one side and
the domestic producing interests on the
other side, but that it is, on the contra
| ry, nothing more or less than a mere
tax law This curious attitude on the
part of journal which for many years
| has effectively resisted the free trade
| theory that ''the tariff is a tax" has
evoked vigorous and able criticism
from the pen of Mr.. James M. Swank,
editor of the Bulletin of the Iron and
Steel Association Mr.. Swank accepts
without qualification the claim of the
| American Economist that a protective
tariff, especially designed to restrict
foreign competition and hold the home
market for home producers, is con-
tract or covenant. Says the Bulletin:
| GAIL legislation that imposes prOtec-
tive duties on foreign products is a vir-
| tual contract with our own people to
the effect that if they will enlist their
energies and risk their capital in the
employment Of American labor for the
production Of articles which are the
counterpart of imported products they
| shall be protected against ruinous for
eign competition by these duties. What
else is to be said Of the various sched-
uIes Of the Mckinley tariff and the
| Dingley tarif-the sugar schedule, the
| chemical schedule, the glass schedule,
the metal schedule, the cotton, silk and
and agricultural schedules, ETC.? Plain
| ly these schedules promise protection
to American energy and capital in the
| development of the respective indus
| tries mentioned. And it is because the
Mckinley and Dingley tariffs have
promised this protection, or, If you
please, contracted to provide it, that the
American people have accomplished
such wonders in industrial develop
ment. And it was because similar con-
| tracts were conspicuously broken in
the enactment of the compromise tariff
of 1888, the Polk tariff Of 1916 and the
| Wilson tariff Of 1894 that the country's
industrial development was sharply ar
rested. The government did not keep
it's plighted faith with our own people.
In other words, it broke its contracts,
and disaster followed. If protective
| tariff is not a contract with the whole
country what is it? A revenue tariff
may not imply contract except per-
| haps with foreigners, but the Dingley
tariff is protective measure"
Herein lie the pith and marrow Of
the whole controversy. The Dingley
tariff is a protective measure, conceived
as such, framed and intended as such,
enacted as such. The Dingley tariff
says to capital, "Build your plants,
or enlarge those already built, employ
labor, pay wages and produce goods
for the. supply Of the American mar
ket, and the rates of duty provided in
this law shall operate as certain guar
antee that you shall not be undersold
and deprived Of your market by the
competing products of cheaper foreign
labor" The Dingley tariff says this
plainly and unequivocally 1t does not
conceal it's intention to restrict foreign
competition. 1t pledges the faith Of
the party in power that foreign compe
tit1on shall be restricted.
To the American farmer the Dingley
tariff says, "Buy lands, erect build
ings and fences, purchase machinery,
implements, horses and oxen, and the
government will, through the enforce
ment Of this tariff law, guard you
against the competition Of cheap lands
and cheap labor"
To the beet sugar grower Of the
north and the cane sugar grower of
the south the Dingley tariff has said
| in the form of a written law and COM
pact, Engage in the cultivation Of
sugar beets and of sugar cane, and the
government will protect you against
the cheaper sugar of Cuba, of Ger
many, of Russia, or of any and all 9TH
err sugar producing nations"
To the farmers who grow tobacco the
Dingley tariff says: "Select your soil,
buy your lands, provide the necessary
building for storage and treatment, put
up your cloth awnings at an expense Of
$500 an acre and produce wrapper leaf.
The tariff of $1.85 per pound is there to
aid you in making your industry safe
and profitable"
On the strength of these pledges and
promises, relying on this explicit agree
ment, this written covenant, this bind
ing contract, the farmers Of the United
States have turned 100000 acres or
more t. the production Of sugar
beets, have 100000 acres devoted to
leaf tob,.cc growing. Can the govern
ment morally violate this protective
tariff compact with these agricultural
producers and by treaty arrangement,
in the making of which the people have
had no voice, take away the pledged
protection and subject them to the I'M
fair and injurious competition of for
eigners? No; the government cannot
morally do this. It cannot legally do it
in the manner and form Of treaty
originating in and ratified by a single
L INlw1