Omaha daily bee., 1910-01-28
Some Things You Want to Know
The English ElectiOns-The Tariff Reform Issue.


The phrase tariff reform In English
politics means exactly the opposite Of what
1t means In the United states. In England
the tariff reformers'' are those who pro-
pose to establish protection as the guiding
principal Of the British customs 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 accepted 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 a
merely revenue scale, or to free trade; al
though they have been almost entirely
swallowed up by the tariff revislonists."
who believe In a reduction Of the tariff
duties, but in maintaining the protective
principle.
Customs duties In England are laid on
spirits, tobacco. sugar, tea and other non
competing articles. II Is the nearest APP
proach to free trade existing In any great
nation. The first note OF dissatisfaction
with the system was sounded in Blrming-
ham, about seven or eight years ago, and
In 1908 Mr.. Joseph Chamberlain organ
lied the Tariff Reform league. This or
g%anization, working Independently Of party
because neither conservatives nor liberals
would have anything TO do with It, has
succeeded in creating a great public senti-
ment 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 dis
puted that Mr.. Chamberlain and his Tariff
Reform league were successful in forcing
the conservative party to adopt tariff re-
form as its chief slogan in the battle
against the budget.
Hands off ,he peoples foodi' Tax
land, not loaves!" These and similar cries
from the radicals we're met by tory argu-
ments: Tax the foreigner!' Tariff re-
form 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 hostile
remarks from the audience would he 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 Ameri-
can onlooker 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 America from the time
Of the Walker tariff to the day Of the
Payne-Aldrich act.
The tariff reformers, which means
practically all Of the conservatives, ad,
vanced two reasons and one excuse for
their new faith in protection. They de-
clared it necessary to protect British man
ufacturers from the competition OF
products OF cheap factories and poorly paid
labor of other countries; they declared It
the part OF wisdom to tax the foreigner
instead of the Englishman; and they said
It was a substitute for the land tuxes and
other Objectionable features OF the budget.
In support of these doctrines, with anus
ing Inconsistency but not without dis
tinguished precedent, they appealed to the
voters by speeches, by posters, by leaflets,
and by songs, to support the conservatives
because the liberal government had taxed
tobacco and beer.
The liberals, in opposing the protective
idea, madc 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 a happier dukes"
screamed the posters, developing the
ZIG 80 lial liz uukes' ODJeCllnB 10 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 manufacturing nation
and the richest nation on earth under free
trade, and then, with that delightful in
consistency which seems to attend both
sides of a tariff fight, hey 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 main
tain that English laborers were the best
paid in the world. all in the same speech,
without any apparent effort. The conser-
vative speakers. equally resourceful, found
no difficulty whatever in explaining 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 denouncing the government for in
creasing the cost Of the poor mans tobacco
by the imposition Of a higher customs duty.
The United States and Germany, as the
two greatest high protective tariff coun-
tries, were used freely by both parties to
prove every side Of every QUESTION. The
conservatives said protection would mean