Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 May 1888 — TOWNSHEND ON THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

TOWNSHEND ON THE TARIFF.

Therj Is No Question of Free Trade or Protection Before the People. An Able Speech by Mr. Townshend, of Illinois, in the House of Representatives. j\lr. Townshend, of Illinois, speaking on the tariff in the House of Representatives, said: Mr. Chairman, the issue presented by this (Mills) bill has been often misstated in this debate. It is not tbat of protection or free trade. No one insists upon such a statement of the issue except some desperate Westera Republican Representative who is forced by his party lash to betray his constituency in opposing a measure which will bring relief to his own people from tho curse of unjust aud oppressive taxation. This be does with a hope that he may tiud an excuse which will shield him from the wrath of those who sent him here. It is veil known that there are no advocates of free trade at this time in Congress; even those who in theory believe free trade preferable to protection concede that the amount of the public debt and pensions render free trade at present impracticable. But the false arguments of such unfaithful Representatives will fail to deceive the country or their outraged constituents. A leading Republican newspaper of the Northwest, the Chicago Tr/hwuJ, tersely states the issue, and gives tinrely warning to Western Congressmen that by such arguments they deceive none but themselves, as will be seen by the following extract from a leading editorial of that paper : “The real controversy Is between those of all parties who want high taxes for the sake of plunder, and those of every party who will resist further plucking, and every Republican Congressman from the West should understand that this presents a local issue which is not to be indefinitely postponed or obscured in a partisan fog, but which must be met now and in accordance with the interests of his constituents. ” I especially commend this clear statement of the issue by this great Republican organ to Republican members from the Northwest, and ad visa them to revise their speeches before distributing them where the Tribune circulates Iby striking out the phrases that this bill presents the issue of free trade against protection, 1 and the charge that the President advocates Lfree trade in his message. 1 give this friendly Ihdvice that their constituents may not charge Shein with duplicity as well as subserviency to pastern monopolists. The message of the President expressly refutes such a charge when he uses in his message the following language : “Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improvea liy dwelling upon the theories of proteation and free trade. 'This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition that confronts us, not a theory. Relief from this condition may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we award our home product ons. but the entire withdrawal of such advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free trade is absolutely irrelevant; and the persistent claim made in certain quarters that all efforts to relieve the people from unjust and unneces lary taxation are schemes of so-called free traders is mischievous and far removed from any consideration for the public good. ’’ Senator Sherman in 1837, when discussing tho tariff, rebuked this reckless and demagogical use of the term “free trade” when he said: “In considering so complicated a subject as a tariff, nothing can be more deceptive than the application of such general phrases as a ‘protective tariff,’ ‘a revenue tariff,’ ‘a free-trade tariff.’ Every law imposing a duty on imported goods is necessarilj a restraint on trade. It imposes a burden upon the purchase and sale of imported goods and tends to prevent every importation. The expression ‘a free-trade tariff’ involves an absurdity. ’’ The only issue raised by this bill is whether we shall reduce the high taxes created during the war, which are wholly unnecessary now, and which produce distress among the masses of .the people, and. if so, upon what subject of taxation the reduction shall be made. An examination of the bill will show that out of the 5217,000,000 of tariff taxes collected last year it only proposes a reduction of less than 354,000,000. If it becomes a law it will still leave tariff taxes aggregating $163,000,00.1. It will only reduce the present rate of tariff taxes from 47 to 3(jj)er cent., being a reduction of only H percent. Now, sir, Senator Sherman, a Republican candidate for President this year, said in 1867 it was “simply an absurdity to talk about a free trade tariff, and to talk about a protective tariff is unnecessary, because the wit of man could not ipossibly frame a tariff that would produce SIIO,OO »,000 in gold without amply protecting our domestic industry.” If he is good authority oh such a subject, and he is so helfl by the Republican party, this bill still leaves twenty-three millions more on the tariff list that, as stated by Senator Gherman, will afford

ample protection to our manufacturing interests. Mr. John Sherman, whose versatility of opinion has inspired his friend and biographer, Judge Lawrence, to commend him on sympathetic grounds to the support of every variety of American voters as being politically a sort of conjurer’s inexhaustible bottle, with every variety of sentiment on tan, declared in 18W that— Every advance toward a free exchange of commodities is an advance in civilization; every obstacle to a free exchange is born of the same narrow, despotic spirit which planted castles upon the Rhine to plunder peaceful commerce ; every obstruction to commerce is a tax upon consumption; every facility to a free exchange cheapens commodities, increases trade and production, and nromotes civilization. (Report on International Monetary Standard, June 9, 1868. n. 180.) Tn 18)7, when enormous revenues were required to meet current expenses and interest on the vast public debt, and when no surplus restricted the volume of circulating media, Mr. bherman declared, as I have already stated, that: “The wit of man could not possibly frame a tariff that would produce $140,000, OjO iu gold without amply protecting our domestic industry ” Yet now legislation which would “frame a tariff that would produce” nearly $170,000,00-J is stigmatized by Mr. Sherman as being “free trade. ” As lately ns 1870 Senator Allison had this to say of the Democratic tariff of 1816 : “The tariff of 1846, although confessedly and professedly a tariff for revenue, was, so far as regards all the great interests of the country, as protective a tariff us any that we have ever had." He further said: “But I may be asked how this reduction shall be mode. I think it should be made upon all leading articles, or nearly all. and for that purpose, when I can get au opportunity in the House, if no gentleman does before me, I shall move that the pending bill be recommitted to the Committee on Ways and Meaus with instructions to report a reduction upon existing rates of duty equivalent to 20 per cent, upon the existing rates, or one-fifth reduction. Even this will not be a full equivalent for the removal cf all tne internal taxes upon manufactures. ’’ Now, if Senator Allison thought that the tariff on import duties in 1870, when the rata was less than 47 per cent., could be safely and wisely reduced 20, per cent., is it unreasonable or dangerous to the manufacturing interests if the policy of the President should be adopted, as provided in this bill, which reduces the rate from its present amount of 47 per cent, only 11 per cent., which is 9 per cent, less than Senator Allison advocated? Senator Allison used this language in speaking of the wool schedule in the tariff bill of 1870 : “Such a reduction (on wool and woolens) would benefit the consumer and not injure either the wool-grower or wool-manufacturer.” Then he proceeds at length to explain why a reduction of the tax on wool and woolen goods will—as substantially assarted in the report of she Committee on Ways and Means —inure to the advantage of the wool-grower and the manufacturer of woolens. (See Vol. 81 of the Congressional Globe of 1870, Aependix, page 194.)