The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1904-10-23

4
giving the wageworIer his share, the syster
virtually says:
| Let the Government take care Of tho r!c
and tho .lch will tats care Of the poor
1t is g short step. then. TO say: Let the Cor
eminent take care OF sverybody." doctrin
abhorred OF all sound-thinkins men. But 1
is not true that greatly enlarged profits are o.
that account divided among the vorknen help
Ing to produce them The advance in wage
Is not due rliIe to desire on the part @
the employer to share profits with his workmen
but rather to the examination OF the workmcu
TARIFF HISTORY.
Protection did not come to an end, how.
ever, in 1s:. On the contrary, It was augrnente,
| In that year from 70 per cent to - per cen
average. The n.It tarin. enacted In 1916 WIS .
reduction to q per cent-the Walker tarin
There Was further reduction In 1857. In wh,ct
| the protected classes themselves concurred q
| per cent average.
At this point IN on. history the tariff que5-
tion ceased temporarily to be an Issue In Amer.
| lean politics It disappeared 20 completely that
| when the Republican party was formed nobody
thought OF revtTtng II and there L. good reason
! for be iertnS that II never would have been re-
| viyed but Tor the Civil War. wh ch necessitated
| the raising OF a large revenue to meet the ez-
! traordnary demands on the treasury.
| The certain classes arailed themselves Of this
| opportunity to rcintroducc the protective sys-
tenn for their own advantage. and they rero
| successful.
The result was the Morrill, tarir. or. rather.
four successive instsilmsnts OF the Morrill,
tariff. OF which Senator Sherman. in a debate
on the tarir bill Of 1877 spoke as follows:
1T must be remembered that the present du-
ties. taken together. are far In excess Of what
they were before the war and they havo been
three times largely increased since the pa,.sxe
of'the Morrill, tariff act Of 1851 II the present
Rates Of duty were high enough during and
since the war, when home industry was bur-
dened with heavy internal taxes. with stamp
duties income taIes and high rates on raw
materials. then surely they are now TOO high,
when all these taxes are removed
Tho views which Senator Sherman here c1-
pressed and which many other Republican
statesmen entertained. gained such ascendeacy
In the councils q tho party tha, a rlan for
revision Of the tariff was made 4 distinctive
feature OF President Arthur's administration
With the sanction OF q protectionist Congress-
4 commission was appointed for this purpose
In iss2. consisting with ono exception Of the
chosen representatives Of the protected In
dustriey.
REVISION DEMANDED.
They spent several months taking testimony
and ulade report IN which they summed up
their conclusions in these words:
Early 10 Its deliberations tho commission BE-
came convinced that q substantial reduction Of
tariff duties is not demanded by a mere in
discriminate popular ciamor. but by the hes,
conservative opinion Of the country. including
that which has. In former times been most
strenuous for the preservation Of our ma
donaI Industrial defeneea Such reduction
Of the existing tariff tho commission regards
DOT only as due recognition OF rubI.c eenti.
nent and measure Of Justice to consumers
euf one conducive to tho general industrial
prosperity and which, although Il may b tenn
porartiy inconrentent. viii Be iesitimataiy bcne-
acial to the special interests effected b, such
reduction"
The commission also reported q bin which
they said would make an average reduction OF
u to 2 peT cent In tbs rates OF duty. The pro-
tected interests. which bad previously given
their consent and support to the commission. |
now suddenly changed front. They went to |
Washington killed the commission bill and |
caused Congress to pass anothsf In tss olacp |
II was framed IN . oouterence committee In |
secret was never considered In dessU In /
either house of Congress. II was passed In o,e
lump.
Instead Of reducing eu.ics % o. = per cent. q
the commission bad recommended. this bill In |
creased the average rate On dussabis goods
from l.a per cent to lS.8 per cent
This was the tariff OF 1883 Notwithstanding
the betrayal OF public interests which II In
voived and the cIanGestinc manner Of Its en-
actnsnt, this tariff was more moderate than
tho subsequent Mckinley tariff O: 1890. or the
pfnsley tarn now In force. The average ratr |
Of the former. Al shown BY the impcrsations
Of fs9a was A.1 per cent On dutiabIe GOODS |
The dntiabis importatious Of the ,aet dscaI |
year. ending June 20. Do1 were ss;s SOL 80 and |
the duties contained with 500. .us. which Il
n average rate Of 5s PSF cent.
RISE OF FTFTr PER CENT.
To this condition we have come ss last l
Besinninx with a tariff o. 81: per cent In
lIss. when manv Of our industries were really
Infants. We have By successive steps reached
themselves have become colossal
Hamilton said that the iron and sssei IN. |
tustry was aireadv In 4 fourishine condition
In his dino. He was willing. nsverthsiesA 10
zive ~ Der cent OF protection 70 stsei. II
now has F.s psf ton On steel rails and tho
steel pooi'' sells them to Canadians At uo
Der ton. but exacts s2s from American uur-
.hasers.
It IS enabled By the tariff to DO this, for
without the tnrin Il would be obliged 10 sell
aiis NJ home for the price at which they could
'e imported. American railways are thus COM
,elled to pay T-ss per ton more than q fair
rice. that u $7.3 more than the price 1t which
omeoody else would supply them. Why do
he railroads submit to such eItoFtiou? Why
10 they remain qufetf Why do they not estab-
lsh rolling mills and make their own rsfisf
;urely. the difference Of s7.A per ton. or 10
'er cent. is sufficient inducemen: to do 60.
cannot answer this question. but IL the
eadeTs OF the steci rail industry are also the
Of those railways which are strong
nocsh 10 dsesnd tasmsslsas asaine sxtsrtson.
he u1ysts1y b explained. In such case, The ]