The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1908-08-27

In ordinary affairs there Is no diff
| erence between tariff reformer and a
| protectionist They meet together in
and in the church. In their daily life
they apply the same rules and are guild
| ed by the same business rules. This
similarity manifests itself all through
| lire and up to the very hour OF death.
If a protectionist makes a will he
| makes II upon the same plan that the
| tariff reformer follows. As death ap-
proaches, he estimates the value of his
| property leaves to his wife and child
| rem what he wishes them to have and
] then makes such bequests as he likes
to public institutions and to those out
| side of the family; and such part as he
leaves to his wife and children, he care
| fully divides among them, giving to
each definite share. He does not give
, all his property to one child and say
| that he trusts the child to deal fairly
with the rest of the family. Why? Be
| cause he knows his children and
! would not put child in position
| where selfishness might lead him to do
| injustice to other members of the fam
! lily. No, he would not trust his own
| flesh and blood to deal fairly with those
reared at the same freside with him;
and he is wise in not placing this temp
| tation before one of his own family.
! But when protectionist comes to make
| a tariff law, he acts on an entirely diff
| terent plan he votes millions, yes, hun
| dreds of millions of dollars to manu-
| facturers whom he has never seen, and
| trusts them to be just in the distribu-
| ton of the trust fund among their en-
! ployees. And what has been the re-
! suit? Just what might have been eN
| pected-the manufacturers have APP
| proprated the trust fund to their own
| use and have paid their employees only
| such wages as trade conditions com
| PEELED.
| The Homestead strike occurred after
| the Republican convention of 1892 but
| his letter of acceptance. He could not
| Ignore the strike, for it presented an OBJ
| 1ect lesson which even high-tariff Re
publican could not fail to see. So Mr..
! Harrison the candidate, referring to
the strike, said
81 regret that all employers of labor
are not just and considerate and that
capital sometimes takes too large a
share of the profits!" TOO large a
share of the profits?" Yes; more than
| that The protected manufacturers have
secured, in many cases, a tariff of more
than twice the percentage paid to work
men in wages. The net profits of the
steel trust last year were just about
equal to the entire amount paid in
wages, and the wages constituted less
than twenty-five per cent of the total
value of the product. According to this
statement, each working man employed
by the steel trust earned, on an aver
age, not only the amount paid to him,
but one hundred per cent profit besides
for his employer. And, / may add
while these beneficiaries of protection
have been pretending to make the tar
If laws for the direct benefit of the
employees, these same employees have,
as rule been kept close to the hung
er line, while many of the employers
Swollen fortunes" which now menace
the nations morals as well as it's busi-
ness.
And yet the Republican party was not
willing that a single item on the steel
he nd
Republican campaign committee will
not dare to publish before the election,
the contributions that have been made
or will be made to the republican cam
paign fund by the men most largely in
terested in the steel trust
How long will the Republican farm
ers. merchants and laborng men per-
nit a few men to make the tariff laws
for their own peCuniary advantage and
at the expense of the rest of the coull-
try?
The second step in the reduction of
the tariff is a material reduction upon
the necessities of life especially upon
goods competing with such American
manufactures as are sold abroad more
cheaply than at home" At present the
articles used by the poor bear a h gh-
er rate, ad valorem, than the articles
used by the rich. This statement can
be verified by an examination of any of
the schedules. A tax upon consumption
even when laid with absolute impair
TALLY, bears heaviest upon the poor,
because our necessities are much more
uniform than our possessions. People |
do not eat in proportion to their in
come; they do not wear clothing in pro-
portion to their income, they do not
use taxed goods in proportion to their
income. AS all taxes must come out
of ones income, no matter through |
what system levied or collected, they |
are, in effect, income taxes, and taxes |
on consumption are really graduated |
income taxes, the largest per cent be- |
ing collected from those with the small |
est income and the smallest per cent |
from those with the largest income 1t |
is only fair, therefore, that in an at |
tempt to relieve the people from the |
iniquities of a high tariff, the poor, who |
are over-burdened, should be given first |
consideration. Then, too, reduction in |
the tariff on the necessities of life |
brings a benefit to all the people, while |
reduction in the tax upon luxuries |
would benefit but portion of the peo-
pie.
Surely no one will object to a reduc-
ton being made upon articles which |
come into competition with American |
more cheaply than at home. The Am
erican manufacturer who sends his |
goods to foreign lands and there, with
out any protection whatever, cOmpetes |
successfully with the manufacturers of |
all the world does not need high tar
lift to meet competition in the home |
market. And there are enough articles |
sold abroad at a low price 10 assure a |
large advantage to the American con-
sumers through the carrying out of
this one plank.
l cannot pass from this part of my
subject, without calling attention to the |
fact that Secretary Taft has allowed |
himself to be drawn into the use of an
argument which the beneficiaries of |
protection have been employing for a
generation. Speaking of the gradual
substitution of a revenue tariff for the
protective system, he says in his noti-
tication speech:
1.-THE introduction in power of a par
ty with this aVowed purpose cannot but
cent financial depression and produce
business disaster, compared with which
our recent panic and depression will |
seem small indeed"
Here is a threat of a panic If the Re-
publican party is not retained in pow
er. This panic argument was worked
overtime in 1896, but / am surprised that
a Republican refers to it in the pres
ent campaign.
We have had three panics since the
party was born: the panic
of 1873, the panic of 1893 and the panic
of 1901 The panic of 1873 came after
the Republican party had been in com
plete control of the federal government |
fore our party succeeded in securing |
control of the executive branch of the
government The startling panic and |
depression" of 1873 occurred in the very |
midst of Republican rule, just after a |
Republican victory, and under a high
tariff Is 1t not strange that Secretary
Taft should forget this panic, when he |
warns US to beware of any departure
from the protective system?