Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 March 1888 — ASHINGTON AND HIGH TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

ASHINGTON AND HIGH TARIFF.

At Detroit a choice collection of congenial spirits turned the celebration of Washington’s birthday into a high-tariff hurrah. The yery first’speaker, Senator Hawley, of Connecticut, spoke to the toast, “Washington, the Protectionist.” He declared that Washington was a prot ctionist. “He was made so,” the senator is reported b have said. “He took Alexander Hamilton as his secretary—a man whosa addresses *re to this day text-books of protection.” And more to like effeet. Congressman Cannon, of Illinois, discoursed of “Washington the Farmer.” In the course of his remarks he turned to the representatives of the press and, in the elevated and classical style for which he is noted, said: “Now, you newspaper boys. I’ll give you a scoop. Cleveland is going to send in another message to retrieve the errors of the f reewool message.” Both of these great statesmen knew that General Washington was a protectionist, and no doubt the Illinois statesman was sure that he was in favor of a big tax» n wool. But neither of these statesmen adduced any facts going to show about how much of a protectionism President Washington wa« and how much of a protectionist was his secretary, Alexander Hamilton, whose addresses ere to-day textbooks of protection. Since they she lno light u that subject, suppose we look at the record. First take wool. The “father of the house” and the high-priest of the high-tariff hierarchy has called the first tariff of the United States, that of July 4,1789, tariff. Under that tariff unmanufactured wool was free of ail tariff t x. It was in the list of enumerated free goods. Ali unenumerated articles were dutiable at the uniform rate of 5 per cent., and among those articles were manufactures of wool, excepting readymad) clothing, which was subjected to a duty of 7i| per cent. Wool remained on the free list until 1824. Duties on manufactures of wool were increased from time to time, but nev r exceeded 15 per cent, until 1812, when, with all other duties, they were doubled to raise means for prosecuting the second war with Great Britain. Wool was free until twenty-five years after the death of Washington and twenty years after the death of Hamilton, and during their lives the duties on manufactures of wool did not exceed 12| per eent. Compare that with our present duties, equivalent to 87 per cent, on raw wools and 67 per cent, on manufactures, and see how far we hav -> departed from the practice of Washington and the author of our text-books of protection. Now take some other articles. On cut, hoop, slit, rolled, or hammered iron the“ Washington tariff” act laid a duty of 74 per cent.; on cables and chains, 75 cents per cWt; on manufactures not specially provided for, 5 per cent Our present duties are equivalent to 38 per eent, varying all the way from 11 to 122 per cent. On all glass an* glassware the duty was 10 per cent.; present average, over 65 per cent. On stone and china ware the Washington tariff was 10 per cent.; present average 58 per cent But it is not necessary to go further into details. Suffice it to say that the Washington tariff averaged about 8| per cent on dutiable goods, while the present tariff averages about 47 per cent. It would hardly seem, therefore, that the statesmen who talked at Detroit on the 22d were warranted in attempting to drag in the names of Washington and Hamilton in support of a 37 per cent, tax on wool cud a 47 per cent, general tariff. It would hardly seem that it w*s

appropriate to sound the praises of a 47 per cenk tariff in celebrating Washington’s birthday. It would be about as appropriate to celebrate Christmas by eulogizing Bob Insersoll as a theologian and Christian philosopher.—Chicago Times.