The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1910-02-11
The Hess-Lewis Tariff Controversy

.allucication" in your Issue OF
Feb. 4th is as misleading as friend
"voice of The People"
Col Lewis, in his answer titled
Continued, does not con-
or d%isprove or even deny
q single proposition In my article
on his miss statements, but simply
the positions of the two
on the tariff. He does not
deny that our surplus farm pro-
go to European markets,
where the prices are fixed witho ut
any benefit of tariff tax 1 no
further say that instead of benefi t
the tariff tax Is an actual injury to
the farmers exports. 1T causes
our foreign neighboIs to boycott
or tax them in their country. We
prohibit their manufactured goods
they prohibit III farm products
This prohibition or tax on these
lines of trade, enuers to the benefit
of the manufacturer here and to
the farmers there in Europe. But
to the loss of the consumers in
both countries; benefits the rich;
robs the poor. All tariff taxation
everywhere, is in RESTRAINT Of
trade, is against production, is
against labor, is against prosper
ity. No tariff that ever was franz
ed, or can be framed, is just and
fair to all alike, or can promote
general prosperity to all alike; to
the thinking man these care self
evident truths. But see the blund-
ering inconsistency of the republi-
car protective tariff tax; viz. If
the principle of protecting our
poor multi millionaire infant man
ufacturer against foreign competi-
ton is right, it is right to protect
him against home competition; it
is even necessary, in order that he
may get the benefit of the highest
tariff tax price ;hence the combi-
nations against home competition
rightly exists. b. the Antitrust
Sherman law is against this "re-
straint of trade": thus Republican
ism legislates in favor of ''restraint
of trade, then against "restraint
of trade. Error is always incon-
sistant. The consequence is, the
land is full of litigation. Never
were first class lawyers so pros
porous; never were industrials al
hampered and injured; never be-
fore has a government legislatee
in favor of "restraint in trade
and then os prosecuted "restrain'
in trade" Never before has 9
government 30 invited combina
tons, trusts and monopolies and
then so prosecuted them. The
government encouraged the rail
roads to combine against compe
tition by her anti-foreign compe
tition principle, then prosecuted
them. The country is full of an
tagonisms, heart burnings, Unjust
ices and litigation losses because
of the tariff tax, protection princi
pie. Why, the government is nov
forced to inquire into the privat'
business Of our little corner mea
grocers to keep her citizens from
starvation prices. What a grand
eloquent prosperity to the ere dit O
Republicanism!
Col. Lewis repeats in his "TaI
if Continued" that the protectiv
, tariff keeps out foreign goods an
! thus gives the manufacture of tn
goods kept out to home laber an
keeps onr money at home. Thi
resolution induces my repetition G
! the explanation of this fallacy i
2 my first article against Mr.. Lewis
iron industry illustration. l ga,
9 that the protective tariff Is intend
ed to ana does increase the cost {
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES curtail
9 the use at home and the sale (,
broad of our manufactured pre-
9 ducts, lessons the demand for labe
. and the wages and limits the nun
n Der of manufacturing plants an
use of capital. Now here are tw
glazing, opposite, contriadictor
# propositions. The Affirmative a
sertion benefits. The negative, M
only denying benefits, but asser
q ing positive injuries: First, o,