The Washington times., 1904-10-23
SOUNDS STRONG ALARM on TARIFF

recognition of public sentiment and a
measure of justice TO consumers. but
one conducive TO the general Industrial
prosperity and which. although IL may
be temporarily inconvenient. viii be III
timateIy beneficial TO the special inter
ests affected by such reduction
Resulted in Increase.
The commission also reported a bill
which they said would make an average
reduction Of 20 70 % per cent in the
rates of duty. The protected interests,
which had previously given their con-
sent and support 10 the commission,
now suddenly changed front. They went
70 Washington, killed the commission
bin, ana caused Congress TO pass an
other In its PLACE
lit was framed in a conference com
mitteei that is. in secret. IL was never
considered in detail in either house OF
Congress. 1t was passed ia one lump.
Instead of reducing duties % or 30 per
cent, a. the commission had recon-
mended, this bill increased the average
rate on duUable goods from 4-35 per
cent 10 1856 per cent.
This was the tariff OF 1855 Notwith-
standing the betrayal OF public Interests
which it involved. and the clandestine
manner of its enactment. this tain was
more moderate than the subsequent Nc
knley tariff OF 1880. or the Dingley tar
III now in force. The average rate of
the former. as shown by the importa-
ti0ns = 1892. was 4871 per cent on du-
table goods. The dutiable imp0rtatious
OF the last fiscal year, ended June 50
1866. were $536.S43.5s0. and the duties col
IecJed were $50, S54. JIG. which is an aver
age rate of 90 per cent.
Effect Of High Duties.
''To this condition we have come at
last Beginning with a tariff OF So per
cent in 1883, when many OF our indus
tries were really infants. We have by
successive steps reached a scaIe-of over
80 per cent. while the industries them
selves have become colossal.
Hamilton said that the iron and steel
industry was already in fiourishiuE
condition iu his time. lie was willing.
nevertheless. TO give rs per cent of
protection TO steel II now has asa
per cent on steel rails. and the steel
pool sells them 70 Canadians al So per
ton. but eXacts SZs from American pur-
chasers- lit is enabled by the tariff 20
do this. for without the tariff il would
be obliged TO sell rails al home Tor the
price az which they could be imported.
American railways are thus compelled
70 pay 57S4 more per ton than the fair
price: that is. S1.sa more than the price
at which somebody else would supply
them.
why do the railways submit to such
eZJoTLi0uE Why do they remain quiet2
Why do they not establish rolling mills
and make their own raiIs2 Surely the
difference Of Sl-s4 per ton, or 90 per cent
IS sufficient inducemeut 10 do SO.
81 cannot answer this question. but if
the leaders Of the steel rail industry
are also the controllers OF those rail
ways which are strong enough 10 de
feud themselves against extortiou, the
mystery is explained. In such "a case
the profits 90 into the pockets of the
controllers OF the railroad iu their ca
pacity Of steel producers. while the other
shareholders OF the railways and the
general public pay the difference. The
Jarin lends itself 10 this sort Of grab
game and II the men who command
large capital do not avail themselves OF
the opportunity. they are not so slreEd
as they are generally supposed 70 be.
Opposes Stand Pat"
Il cherish no grudges against men
because they arc rich. nor do / greatly
blame them for taking The profits which
unjust laws throw IN Jhei. way. but i
protest against the unjust laws. / pro-
test against the men who make them
and who stand pat whenever anybody
proposes 10 repeal or modify them.
THE paupeT labor argument for the
tariff has for the most part dropped out
OF sight Industries that compete wIth
foreigners la foreign markets no longer
have the audacity 60 say that the diff
ference Of wages prevents them from
competing on equal terms ia the Amer
lean market
I'm place of the pauper labor argu-
meut and the infant industry argument
ana ali the other arguments hereto
fore noted. the home market argument
has been substituted and is now relied
ON so far as ans arguments are used.
This assumes tEat without the tariff.
and indeed. without the So Dar cent
DmgIey tariff. VIC should have uo home
market for the farmers products OF
for any other products.
RidicuIes Home Market.
This is "a bogy 20 frighten children.
So childish is IT, DO view of what Ham
iIton told as of the hourishing condition
Of large branches OF manufacturing Iu-
dustry more than century ago, and OF
AN that has JrausDiTed since. tHat uo
answer 10 IL is required. The bare state
meut q such au argument carries It's
own reputation. What happened under
che low tariffs OF 1876 and 1887 Was
there any lack OF home market theuE
"On the contrary. Senator morrill, OF
Vermont. the father - the AOIriu