El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1910-01-27

England the tariff refOrmerS are those
who propose to establish protection as
the guiding principle of the British Gus
toms system, instead of free trade.
The principle of free trade, for which
the Anti-Corn Laws league under the
leadership of Golden and Bright, made
such a memorable fight, has been &C
cepted for many decades as the settled
policy of the United Kingdom In
America the tariff reformers" are those
who believe in a reduction of the tariff
duties from a protective principle to
merely revenue scale, or to free trade;
although they have been almost entirely
swallowed up by the tariff revolution
ists," who believe in a reduction of the
tariff duties, but in maintaining the pro-
tective principle
Britain's Customs Duties.
Customs duties in England are laid on
spirits, tobacco, sugar, tea and other
noncompeting articles. 1t is the nearest
approach to free trade existing in any
great nation. The first note of dis
satisfaction with the system was sound
ed in Birmingham about seven or eight
years ago, and in 1903 Joseph Chamber
lain organized the Tariff Reform
league.
This organization, working independ-
emily Of party, because neither COnser-
natives nor Liberals would have any
creating a great public sentiment In
favor of protection. The result of the
present election cannot properly be con-
Strued to be the verdict of the people
on this question since so many other
issues were involved. But it is not to be
disputed that Mr.. Chamberlain and his
Tariff Reform league were successful
in forcing the Conservative party to
adopt tariff reform as it's chief slogan
in ha
Tariff a Live Question.
Hands off the peoples food.1 Tax
land, not ioavesr' These and similar
Tory arguments: Tax the foreigner"
Tariff reform means better times!"
Protection means higher wages and
more work" Everywhere and all the
time during the campaign the tariff
was a live question.
When the Liberal speakers denounced
the house of lords, almost the only hos
tile remarks from the audience would
be from some enthusiastic believer in
protection.
II is not the intention to discuss in
this article the relative merits of tariff
reform and free trade in England. but
the American onIooker could not fail
to be amused by the campaign conducted
for and against protection. 1t was like
a moving picture review Of all that has
been said and done about the tariff in
tariff to the day of the Payne-Aldrich
act
Reasons fer Protection.
The tariff reformers, which means
practically all of the Conservatives, ad-
vanced two reasons and one excuse for
their new faith in protection. They
declared it necessary to protect British
manufacturers from the competition OF
products of cheap factories and poorly
paid labor of other countries: they de-
clared it the part of wisdom to tax the
foreigner instead Of the Englishman
and they said IL was substitute for the
land taxes and other Objectionable fea-
lures of the budget
In support of these doctrines. with
amusing inconsistency, but not without
distinguished precedent. they appealed
by leaflets. and by songs TO support
the Conservatives. because the Liberal
government had taxed tobacco and beer.
Liberals Retort
The Liberals. in opposing the protec-
tive idea, made the most Of the proposed
taxes on breadstuff. and devoted most
of their argument to the cost of bread.
Tax land, not loaves," was the burden
of their song. Tariff reform will make
happier dukes screamed the posters,
developing the charge that the dukes,
Directing to the tax on their lands,
wanted protection in order to put the
tax on the poor mans loaf.
The Liberals shouted that England
had grown TO be the greatest manufac-
turing nation and the richest nation on
earth under free trade. and then, with
that delightful inconsistency which
seems to attend both sides OF a tariff
fight. they declared that England was
already ground into poverty by the
landlords and could not afford to bear
another penny of taxation.
The Liberal speakers could justify
their demand for relief of the poor, and
maintain that III g,ish 1aborers were the
best paid in the world. all in the same
speech. without any apparent effort. The
Conservative Spea erS, equally resource
full found no difficulty whatever in ex-
planning that a tariff duty on wheat
could not possibly increase the price
of bread. since the tax is paid by the
foreigner. and in the same speech de-
nouncing the government for increasing
the cost of the poor mans tobacco by
the imposition OF a higher customs
duty.
United States for Proof.
The United States and Germany. as
the two greatest high protective tariff
countries, were used freely by both
parties to prove every side of every
question. The Conservatives said pro-
lection would mean high wages and
plenty OF jobs. in support OF which
statement they referred to the work
ingnan in the United States, always
with work to do and always getting fab
ulously high wages.
The Liberals retorted with the state
ment that the cost of living was so
high in America that the difference in
wages was really in favor Of the T>-itish
workman, and denying that the Ameri-
cans always had jobs. Some of them
went far enough to say that there were
as many unemployed in the United
States as in England. To this the Con-
servatives replied that the farms OF the
south and west in America always need
ed laborers. thereby bringing down upon
MIN nv p