Los Angeles herald., 1910-01-29

| lKA S& reform" in English politics
E means exactly the opposite of
! l9 k2sSl what it means in the United
pal States. In England the tariff
lke1zY.SA reformers" are those who pro-
/ pose 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 ac-
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 princi-
pie to a merely revenue scale, or to
| free trade; although they have been
almost entirely swallowed up by the
tariff revisionists," 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. 1t is the
nearest approach to free trade existing
in any great nation. The first note of
dissatisfaction with the system was
sounded in Birmingham about seven
or eight years ago, and in 1903 Jo
seph hamberlain organized the Tariff
Reform league. This organization,
working Independently of party be-
cause neither Conservatives nor Lib
erals would have anything to do with
it, has succeeded in creating a great
public sentiment in favor Of protection.
The result Of the present election can
not properly be construed to be the
verdict Of the people on this question
since so many other issues were in
volved. But it is not to be disputed
that Mr.. Chamberlain and his Tariff
Reform league were successful in fore
ing the Conservative party to, adopt
tariff reform as its chief slogan in the
battle against the budget.
Hands off the Peoples Food!' "Tax
Land, Not Loaves!'' These and similar
cries from the Radicals were met by
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 hostile remarks from
the audience would be from some en-
thusiastic believer in protection.
1t is not the intention to discuss in
this article the relative merits of tariff
reform and free trade in England, but
the American 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 TeforIhers, 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
~ 1xc
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 twas a substitute for
the land taxes and other Objectionable
features of the budget In support of
these doctrines, with amusing incon-
sistency but not without distinguished
precedent, they appealed to the voters
by speeches, by posters, by leaflets and
by songs to support the Conservatives
becaunse the Liberal government had
taxed tobacco and beer
The Liberals, in opposing the pro-
tective idea, made the most of the pro-
posed taxes on breadstuff, and de-
voted 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, objecting to
the tax on their lands, wanted pro-
lection in order to put the tax on the
poor mans lc : 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
inconsistency which seems to attend
both sides of a tariff fight, they de-
clared 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 English laborers
were the best paid j. the world, all
in the same speech, without any ap-
parent effort The Conservative speak
ers. equally resourceful, found no diff
ficulty whatever in explaining that a
tariff duty on wheat could not possi-
bly, increase the price of bread, since
the tax is paid by the foreigner, and
in the same. speech denouncing the
government for increasing the cost of
the poor mans tobacco by the lmpo- |
sition of a higher customs duty
The United States and Germany, as
the two greatest high protective tariff
cour tries we're used freely by both |
parties to prove every side of every |
question. The Conservatives said |
protection would mean high wages and !