The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-10-25


body proposes 20 repeal o. modify them.
The pauper labor argument OF the
tariff has for the most part dropped
out OF sight. Industries thai compete
with foreign markets no longer have
the audacity TO say ;hat the difference
o. wages prevents them from cornpet-
ing on equal terms In the American
market.
I'm place Of the pauper labor argu-
ment and the infant Industry argument
and all the other arguments heretofore
noted. the home market argument has
been substituted and is now relied on 50
far as any arguments are used. This
assumes that without the tariff and
indeed without the 81 per cent Dinsiey
tariff. we should have no home market
for the farmers products or for any
other products This Is bogy TO fright
of the children. SO childish Is 4 In view
of what Hamilton told Us Of the Hour
ishing condition OF large branches or
manufacturing industry more taan
century ago and OF all that has trans
pired since no answer To 1t Is required.
The bare statement OF such an arsu-
ment carries its own refutation. what
happened under the low tariffs or 1916
and 1857? Was there any kick of home
market then? On the contrary. Sena-
tor Morrill,, OF Vermont. the father or
the Morrill, tariffs Of the war period,
said In a public debate that the year
1860, which fell within this period. was
one of the most prosperous IN our
history This Is also the testimony or
Professor Taussig in his tarif history
of the United States, not alone as 10
the year 1860. but as TO that period gen.
orally The same authority tells US
that our cotton spinning industry never
grew more rapidly or prospered more
than under the Walker tariff of 1916.
''The truth IS that the tariff bene-
ficiaries and the stand patters hase
abandoned argument. They virtually
saw to us now that a high protective
is n good thing per sc. and ought %
last forever and by this they mean
the present Dingley tariff. SO ssr
have the old arguments been aDan-
doned, that it is not necessary now
for a particular industry, in order 10
get protection, TO show that 1t can
not stand alone and make fair prohts
on its own merits. About two years
ago a large deposit OF borax was
found in California. The owners or lt
forthwith advertised that they could
produce borax at such low rates as
to undersell the world. which was the
fact. They went to Washington and
expressly on the ground Of their abti-
ity to undersell foreigners. they got
duty OF cents per pound on borox-
They then began to sell borax in Eng
land at rates far below what they
charged to American purchasers and
are doing so now. But this is only
one of a multitude OF like monopolis
which oppress the public and by no
! means the first in point OF time which
has obtained protection. not because
II needed protection, but because IL
could command votes
Well what of it?' our opponents may
! ask. Answer is supplied by the tariff
commission OF 1883. They said that a
reduction of duties was due as "a
measure of justice to consumers
"A duty which does not raise the
price of the article TO the consume.
| fails OF its object and is therefors
needless for purposes Of protection.
| If ii does radically raise the price
then the consumer pays the diffc.-
| ence, which. as Hamilton said. is the
same thing as a bounty to the pro.
| ducer. These bountes are piling up
mountain high. They are paid by the
people. The beneficiaries, having in
duced the government To shut out
| foreign competition. form trusts and
combinations to stife domestic COM
| petition. Not all the trusts and COM
bines are founded on the tariff. but
| most of them are. Their continued
| existence and their mode OF self per-
| petuation lead to the belief that the
| country is no longer governed by prin-
| ciples, but by interests. The most sf-
| fective remedy that can be applied TO
the combinations or trusts which owe
| their existence to excessive tariff du-
| ties, is to reduce the tariff rates, while
A
| applied as against the other combi-
| nations IS to enforce the law. This
| remedy I pointed out in my response
| TO the notification committee and also
| in my letter Of acceptance. That tha
| remedy can be made effective by an
administration disposed to enforce the
law cannot be doubted by any studen.
| of that branch OF the law. It Is no-
doubted by the trusts, who have goCi
lawyers to advise them. 1t fs nor
| questioned by the trusts that the DEM
ocratic administration will enforce the
| law, as all know that excessive tariff
| rates have caused serious injury to the
great body OF the people. It has In
creased the cost OF living and added
to the price OF. nearly everything thas
the people must buy. This is known
Of all men and they cry out against
| 1T. And their cry should be heeder.
But IL has been SO long a part OF the
policy OF the country mat Its refor-
| nation must be prudently under
taken so as TO prevent an fmmediats
, revolution in existing conditions.
II pointed out In my response TO the
notification committee how gradual re-
duction OF customs duties may be ac-
lcomplished without disturbing ~busi-
ness conditions. and I adhere TO the
| method suggested. But the work
should be undertaken at once In The
interest OF the whole people. And II
can only be undertaken by the dem
cratic party The republican party
will not attempt It. Tt only promises
such a revision az the friends Of the
tariff wish As they do not wish any
revision downward there VIII be none
in that direction while that party can
prevent It Any other revision VIII not
relieve the masses And IL f. to the4-