The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-10-23

wages lhat ne nae 10 pay as compared
with his foreign competitors. As this
argument has at times done great serv-
Ice. although now quite threadbare,
/ viii dwell upon it a moment. Inasmuch
! as the law puts the tariff benefits ex-
! clusiVely in the hands of the capital
( list and provides no means for giving
the WageW0rker his share the system
! virtually says: Let the government
( take care of the rich and the rich will
take care az the poor II is a short
step then to say: Let the government
take care OF everybody, doctrine alb
horred Of all sOInd-thlnking men. But
II IS not true that greatly enlarged
pfohts are on that account divided
among the workmen helping to pro-
duce them. The advance in wages is
not due as a rule to a desire on the
part Of the employer to share profits
with his workmen, but rather to the
Organization of the workmen.
The Walker Tarif.
Protection did not come TO an end
however, in 1912. On the contrary, it
Was augmented i'm that year from 20
per cent 10 81 per cent average. The
next tariff, enacted in 1886 was a re-
auction to p per cent-the Walker
tariff. There was a further reduction
i'm 1887 in which the protected classes
themselves concurred, 20 per cent av-
erage.
AT this point i'm our history the tariff
question ceased temporarily to be an
issue in the American politics. 1t dis
appeared so completely that when the
Republican party was formed nobody
thought Of reviving it, and there is
good reason for believing that it never
would have been revived but for the
civil war. which necessitated the rails
ing Of large revenue to meet the ex-
traordinary demands upon the treas
ury. Certain classes availed them
selves of this opportunity 20 reintro-
duce the Protective system for theiI
own advantage. and they were success
full. The result was the Morrill, tariff.
or rather four successive installments
of the Morrill, tariff of which Senator
Sherman, in a debate OF, the tariff bill
in 1872, spoke as follows:
Sherman's View.
1T must be remembered that the
present duties taken together are far
i'm excess of what they were before the
war, and they have been three times
largely increased since the passage OF
the Morrill, tariff act Of 1851 If the
present rates Of duty were higl enough !
during and since the war. when home /
industry was burdened with heavy in |
ternal taxes with stamp duties. income |
taxes and high rates on raw materials, |
then surely they are now too high when !
all these taxes are removed
The views which Senator Sherman /
here expressed and which many other |
Republican statesmen entertained, |
gained such ascendancy in the councils |
Of the party that d plan for revision |
of the tariff was made distinctive fea- |
tUTe Of President Arthurs administra- /
ton. With the sanction of a prOteC- /
zionist congress, a commission was APP |
pointed for this purpose in 1882, con-
sisting, with one exception, Of the |
chosen representatives. of the protected /
industries. They spent several months
taking testimony and made a report in !
which they summed up their conclU-
sion in these words:
Reduction Necessary.
Early in it's deliberations the COM
mission became convinced that a sub
stantial reduction OF tariff duties is de-
not by a mere indiscriminate
popular clamor, but by the best con-
servative opinion of the country, in
Guiding that which has. i'm former
times. been most strenuous for the
of our national industrial
defenses. Such a reduction of the ex-
listing tariff the commission regards not
only as a due recognition of public SEN
timent and a measure of justice To con-
sumeTs. but one conducive to the gem
eral industrial prosperity and which,
il may be temporarily incon-
venient will be legitimately beneficial
10 the special interests affected by such
The commission also reported a bill
which they said would make an aver
age reduction Of 20 TO % per cent in the
rates OF duty. The protected interests,
which had previously given their con-
sent and support to the commission,
now suddenly changed front. They
vent 10 Washington killed the COM
mission bin and caused congress to pass
another i'm its place 1t was framed in
D conference committee, that is, in Sc
ret II was never considered in detail
n either house of congress. 1t was
lassed in one lump.
Public Interests Betrayed.
Instead Of reducing duties 20 TO 80
Der cent. as the commission had rec
this bin increased the aver ,
ige rate Of duriable goods from 41.33
)er cent to 1886 per cent This was ,
he tariff of 1889. Notwithstanding the
betrayal Of public interests which IT
involved and The clandestine manner I
# its enactment. this tariff was more I Z
Moderate than the subsequent McKin- :
ey tariff of 1890, or the Dingley tariff '
low in force The average rate of the :
ormer rs shown by the importations {
# 1892 was 4S.1 per cent on dutiable ;
FOODS. The dutiable importations of
he fiscal year ending June 80. 1904. F.,
we're $685.. $40 $50. and the duties collect ,
4 nh fg- fc
ate OF So per cent. {
'To this condition we have come at
ast. Beginning with tariff of 81 2
'er cent i'm 1883 when many of our i'm
ustries were really infants. we have ,
" successive steps reached a scale OF c
yer so per cent, while the industries 7
themselves have become colossal. Ham
ton said that the iron and steel in Q
ustry was already in a hourishing Z
in his time. He was willing. I
evertheless. to give y. per cent of g
rejection 20 steel. II now has 7.S4 S
or cert on steel rails and the steel
Ool' sells them TO Canadians at SIG 9
er ton. but exacts SIS from American !
urchasers. It is enabled by the tariff h
D DO this. for without the tariff il I
-ould be obliged TO sell rails at home j
)r the price at which they could be 4
nported American railways are thus (
to pay 1884 per ton more I
nan a fair price; that is. S7S4 more b
IAN the price at which one0ody else
ould supply them.
A Grab Game.
Why do the railways submit 10 e
lch extortion? Why do they remain q
liet? Why do they not establish Il
bling mills ana make their own rails? n
CONTINUED on Page > i