Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1903-09-17

entering wedge that gave to the sys-
tenn Of protection as now on our stat
ute books, the flavor of age. In that
day the revenue thus obtained by law
was for the purpose of maintaining
the government, today its principal
object is to maintain the trusts 1t
may be true that all tariff duties are
not for the benefit of trusts, but every
trust is sustained by some tariff act,
restraining Importation and prevent
ing competition.
In 1897 when the Dingley law was
enacted, Republican congress and
Republican president placed duty on
every form of wood that came into the
United States. 1t placed upon white
wood, sycamore and bass wood, a duty
of one dollar per thousand feet, on
sawed lumber two dollars per thou
sand feet, and If planed upon one side,
fifty cents additional, and planed on
both sides, one dollar additional.
1t placed duty of thirty cents per
thousand on lath; placed duty OF
thirty cents per thousand on shingles;
1T placed duty upon all boxes and
barrels containing oranges and lemons
from foreign countries, of thirty per
cent valorem. 1t placed a duty on
kindling wood, clapboards, hubs for
wheels. leaving not a possible contin-
gency wherein single article of wood
hn oh int
States that was not required to pay a
duty.
Revenue Distinguished from Protection
1t was not revenue, but protective
duty, because 1t was almost prohibit
tory. Understand, there is a differ
eLce between protective and revenue
duties. A strictly revenue duty IS a
tariff on an article of which our coun-
try does not produce sufficient for
home consumption, and the revenue
thus derived is paid into the treasury
of the United States. 1t may lnc1den-
tally afford some protection but that
is not it's prime object. A protective
duty is one on articles which we man
ufacture in quantities sufficient for
home consumption but the duty is
placed so high as to prevent importa-
ton and thereby competition is elimi-
mated. It enables the home manufac-
trrers TO not only monopolize the
home market but by reason of the
high price received at home he is able
to undersell the foreigner in his own
field, as We witness in the iron and
steel aud petroleum trade.
In It's original inception 1t was not
intended to stifle competition or TO
aid in controlling prices. Alexander
Hamilton and Henry Clay would turn
in their graves if they knew the Ding
ley act was the natural outgrowth of
their ideas of raising revenue. These
men were not protectionists In the
sense of the "stand patter" of today.
They dill not believe in compelling the
common people to pay the campaign
assessments of political party by
maintaining trusts. When you depart
from the revenue point, duties become
protective, that is, competition Is
eliminated, and therefore no revenue
results.
AS an Illustration, of the protective
duty being prohibitory l refer you to
salt, one of the prime necessities OF
life. The duty on barrel of salt at
the present time is almost as much
as the salt itself is worth. and but
little salt is imported In that case
the duty amounts to a prohibition.
This is a protective duty and the pro-
Queer has a monopoly of the home
market, at any price he wishes.
Now, who pays the tax on lumber?
Why, the consumer, of course. When
they came to placing a duty on rail-
road ties and telegraph poles the "pro-
tective boosters" weakened They
knew who it was would primarily pay
the tax in this instance, and they made
the duty in that case twenty per cent
ad valorem, that is according to value
Illustration that the tariff duties as
ROW imposed on the necessaries of life,
are not only unjust but that they are
a hardship and an imposition upon the
common people. Every man who
voted for the Dingley act, knew that
not farmer in the land would be
benefited by a duty on lumber, salt,
sugar, iron and STEEL or tin, and yet
not an Iowa congressman voted against
the proposition. They have not, yet,
explained to you the necessity of
duty on lumber. Not one Of them has
made any offer to lessen the duty or
to relieve you of the strain at the
present time which you feel every
time building material is used
There is not man within the sound
of my voice who does not know 1t to
be a fact that when the Dingley act
passed the price of lumber in every
form was increased from twenty to
forty per cent. 1t would be pleasure
to the farmers of Iowa to be permitted
to purchase lumber again at the prices
paid prior to 1897. Your representa-.
tives in congress do not hesitate to
vote away the peoples money for the
Philippine islands and for river anG
harbor bills, They have not hesitated
to vote in the interest of the eastern