Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 46, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 December 1888 — TARIFF TALK. [ARTICLE]

TARIFF TALK.

Omaha World. Henry Olay has always been looked upon as the father and high priest of the American protective system. Yet even under the tariff of 1824, which is known in American history as the olav tariff, and which he intended and argued should only continue while the infant industries it fostered were in a state of development—even under that tariff, which was at the time supposed to be the very climax of tho protective theory, the taxes on tho Important necessaries of life were by no moans as high as they are now. The Olay tariff imposed a tax of about 25 per eent on cotton goods, tho tariff now is 48 per cent , and the Mills trill only pi eposes to reduce it to 40 per cent, leaving i. thus 16 per eent. above Clay’s tariff. The tariff on raw wool under tho Clay tariff was 25 per,cent; under the present tariff It is just twice as high, while the Mills bill proposes to abolish it in tho interest of tho manufacturers and oi tho consumer.

foThe Olay tariff on woolen goods was 80 p«r cent, cur present tariff is 70 per cent* and toe Mills bill 40 per cent. Was Clay, the father of protection, a free trader? Under Clay’s tariff lumber was free; now It is taxed 20 per cent., and the Mills bill proposes again to make it froe. Under Clay’s tariff general iron manufactures were taxed 25 nor cont; under the present tariff the tax is 45 per cent,; under the Mills tariff It is 40 per cent. or 15 per cent, more than Clay favored. The same figures apply to s*eel manufactures not otherwise provided for. Under the Clay tariff flax goods were taxed 25 percent.; now they are taxed 55 per cent., and the Mills bill proposes to return it to the Olay rate of 25 per cent '

Under the tariff glassware was taxed about 25 per cent.; now it is taxed about 50 per cent., and the Mills bill pro, oses to reduce the tax to 40 per cent In the above paragrapi s we have a comparison of the leading or most important features of Clay’s protective tariff, the present tariff, md the proposed Mills tariff. These Items are most important because they jover the necessaries of life, upon the price of which the oost oi living so largely de 'ends. It is evident that the Clav tariff in these particu** lars was much lower than the present tariff, and that in most ar icle? of necessity the Clay tariff was lower even than the proposed Mills bill 11, therefore, the Clay tariff was a protective measure, then ! in a still greater degree must the Mills bill bo called protective. And yet the<e are honorable gentlemen and prominent party organs, who. through ignorance or dishonesty, call the Mills bill a free trade measure.