Rensselaer Republican, Volume 20, Number 16, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 December 1887 — MR. BLAINES VIEW. [ARTICLE]

MR. BLAINES VIEW.

OMhlmllr to Reduction f n ihe Tariff as at Present I*at(l. , Anwlntu I. duttrtra Shutllft M* Pro* ttMtieU Mid Whi«kjT»H"cl A'*e -Tho Tariff on Wool K«td«U to Krt |> Moiu**Ma»<l«> lltaukotH on oar B r Immediately after the publication of the President’s message, Hon. James 0. Blaine, who is now sojourning in Pari*, submitted to an interview on the tariff question. He said! “I have been reading an abstrfet of the President’s message, and have been espeoallv interested in "the comments of the London papers. Those papers all assume to declare the message is a free trade manifesto, and evidently ere j anticipating an enlarged market for j RngHah fabrics inthe United States as a ocinseonenre of the President's recorn menda' iohs. " IVfbSjip " Iblil 'IRM'j stamped tho character ot that message more clearly than any words of mine can” “Yon don’t mean actual free trade without duty?” queried the reporter, ‘No,” replied Mr. Blaine; ‘‘nor -do the London papers mean that. They Birnply mean that thi President has recommended what in the United States is known as a revenue tariff, rejecting the protective feature as an object and not even permitting protection to result freely as an incident t"> revenue - duties ” “I don’t know that I comprehend that, last point,” said the reporter. “I mean,” daid Mr. Blaine, “that for the first time in the history of the United States, the President recoin mends retaining the internal tat in order that, the tariff miy be forced down even below the fair revenue, standard. He recommends that the tax on tobacco ht> retained, and thus. that many millions annually shall be levied on a doimsiic product which would far better come from a tariff on foreign fabrics.” “Then do yon mean to imply that you would favor the repeal of the tobacco tax?’. “Certainly; I mean just that,” said Mr. Blaine. “I should urge that to be done at once, even before the Christmas holidays. It wonld in the first place bring great relief to growers of tobacco Sll ever the country, and would materially lesson the price of the article to the consumers. Tobacco to millions of men is a necessity. The President calls it a luxury, but, it is a luxury in no other sense than tea and coflee are luxuries. It is well to remember that the luxury of vesterdav becomes a necessity of today. Watch, if you please, the number of men at work on the farm, in the coal mine, along the railroad, in the iron foundry, or in any Tailing, and you will find ninety-five to pne hundred chewing while they .work. After each meal the same proportion seek tne solace of a pipe or cigar. These then not only pay the millions of the tobacco tax, but pay on every ping and every cigar an en. hanoed price which the tax enables ttie -manufacturer and retailer to impose. Ttie only excuse for such a tax is the. actual necessity under which the Government found its seif during the war, and the years immediately following To retain the tax now m order to destroy the protection which would incidentally fallow from raising the same amount of money on foreign imports, is certainly a most extraordinary policy for our Government.” “Well, then, Mr. Blaine, wonld you advise the repeal of the whisky tax?” “No, I would not. Other considerations than those of financial admist-a-tion are to be taken into account with regard to whisky. There is a moral side to it. To cheapen the price of whisky is to increase the consumption ©norm otis’y. There would be no sense in urging the reform wrought by high lkensem many States ii Tne National; Government neutralizes the good effect by making whisky within the reach of every one at twenty cents a gallon Whisky would he every where distilled if the surveillance 61 the GoVermem were withdrawn by the remission of the tsr; and ellicit sales would nor then be prevented even bv a police as rigorous and searching as that whiclr Russia pursues the Nihilists. It would destroy high license at once in all the States. “Whisky has done a vast deal of harm in the United Stales. I. would try and make it do some good. I would use the tax to forti y our cities on the sea btard. Tnviewofthe powerful letter addressed to the Deni ore ratio party on themhject of fortification - by the late Samuel J. Tiklen, in 1885, lam aoqozsd that no attention has oeen paid to the subject bv the Democratic administration. Never before iu the his torv of the world has any government, allowed great cities on the sea board, like Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans and Sin Francisco to remain defenseless.” “But,” said the reporter, ‘ you don’t think we are to have war ia any direc tion?” “Certainly not,” said Mr, Blaine. “Neither, I presume, did Mr. Tilden when he wrote his remarkable letter. Bat we should change a remote chance into an absolute imposeibilty. If our weak and exposed points were strongly fortified; it to-day we had by any chance even suen a war as we had with Mexico our enemy could procure iron-clads in Europe that would menace our great cities with destruc ion or lav them under contribution.” “But would not our fortifying now look as if we expected war?” “Why should it any more than the fortifications made seventy or eighty years ago by our grandfathers, when they guarded themselves against successful attack from the armaments of that day? We don’t necessarily expect a burglar because we lock our doors at night, but, if by any possibility, a burglar cornea it connlbutes vastly to our peaie of mind and our sound sleep to feel that, he can’t get in.” “But after the fortifications should be constructed would you still maintain the tax on whisxy?” ‘‘Yea,” said Mr. Blaine. “So long as and when the National government should have no use for the money I should divide the tax among the Federal Union with the specific object of lightening the tax oh veal estate. The houses and farms of the whole country pay too large a proportion 9* the taxes. If, ultimately, relief could be given in that direction,it would, in my judgment, he a wisp and beneficent policy. Some honest but misguided friends of temperance have urged that the government snotiid not us© the money - derived sr >m

the tax on whisky. My reply is that the tax bn whisky by the Federal government, with its suppression of all illicit distrl'ation, ana consequent enhancement of price, haa been a powerful agent in the temperance reform by putting it beyond the reach of so many. The amount of whisky used in the United States per capita, to (Jay is not more than forty per cent, of that consumed thirty years ago.’’ After a few moment’s silence, Mr. Blaine added that, in his judgment, the whisky tax should be so modified as to permit all who use pure alcohol in the arts aud mechanical pursuits, to have it free of tax. In all such cases the tax oould be remitted wiihont danger of fraud, just as now the tax on Bpirits ex* norted are remitted. .» “Besides your general and sweeping opposition to the President’s recom mendation, have you any other specific objections?” “Yes,” answered Mr. Blaine; “I should seriously object to the repeal of the duty on wool. The repeal that would work great injustice to many interests and would seriously discourage what we should earnestly encourage; namely, the sheep culture, among farmers throughout the Union To break down wool growing and be dependent on foreign countries for the blanket under which we sleep, and the coat fiat covers our back is hot a wise policy for the National government, to enforce.” “Do you think if the President’s recommendation Were adopted it would increase our export trade?” “Possibly in some few articles . >f peculiar construction it might, hut it would iricreaseour import trade ten-fold as much in the great staple fabrics, in woolen and cotton goods, in iron, in steel.in all the thousand and one shapes in which they are wrought. How are we to export staple fabrics to the markets, of Europe, and how are we to manufacture them cheaper than they do in Eu rope unless we get cheaper labor than they have in Europe. “Then you think that the question of labor underlies the whole subject? ’ “Of course it does,’’replied Mr. Blaine, “It ia, in fact, the entire question. Whenever we can force carpenters, masons,iron workersand machauics in every department to work as cheaply, and live as poorly, in the United States, as similar workmen in Europe, we can, of course, manufacture just as cheaply as they do in England aud France. But I am totally opposed to a policy that would entail such results. To attempt it is equivalent to a social and financial revolution, and that would bring untold distress.” “Yes.but might not the great farming class be benefited by importing articles from Europe instead of buying them at higher prices at home?” “The moment,” answered Mr. Blaine, “you begin to import freely from Europe you drive our own workmen from mechanical and manufacturing pursuits. The same proportion they become tillers of the spil, increasing steadily the agricultural product, and decreasing steadily tfie large home demand which is constantly enlarging as home manufactures enlarge. That, of course, works great injury to the farmer, glutting the market with itis products and tending constantly to lower prices.” “Yes, but. the foreign demand for farm products would be increased in like ratio, would it not?” “Even suppose it were,’” said Mr. Blaine, “now do you know the source from which it will' be supplied? The tendency in Russia to day and in the Asiatic possesions of England is toward a large increase of the grain supply, the gram being raised by tne cheapest possible labor. Manufacturing countries wiil buy their breadstuffs where they can get them cheapest, and the enlarging of the home market for the American farmer beiug checked he would search in vain for one of tbe. same value. His foreign sales are already checked by the great competition abrpad. There never was a time when the increase of a large home market was so valuable to him. The best proof is that the farmers are prosperous in proportion to the nearness of manufacturing centers, and a protective tariff tend to Bpread maufacturers. In Ohio and Indiana for oxainpLe, though not classed as manufacturing States the annual value of fabrics is larger than the annual value of agricultural products ” “But those holding the President’s views,” remarked the reporter, “are always quoting the great propriety of the country under the tariff of 1846.” That tariff did not involve the one destructive point recommended by the President, namely, the retaining of direct, internal taxes in order to abolish indirect taxes levied on foreign fabrics. But th® country had peculiar advan tages under it by the Crimean war involving England, France and Russia and largely impairing their trade. All these incidents or accidents, if you choose, were immensely stimulating to trade in the United States, regardless of the nature of our tariff. But mark the end of this European experience with the tariff of 1846 which for a time gave an illusory and deceptive show of prosperity. Its enactment was immediately followed by the Mexican war; then in 1848 by the great convnlsions of Europe; then in 1849 and succeeding years by the enormous gold yield in California. The powers made peace in 1854,and at the same time the output of gold in California fell off. Immediately the financial panic of 1856 came upon the country with disast rons force. Though we had in these years mined a vast amount of gold in California, every bank in .New York was compelled to suspsnd specie pay ments. Four hundred millions in gold had been carried out of the country in in eight years to pay for foreign goods that should have been manufactured at home, and we had years ot depression and distresses in atonement for* our iolly. “It is remarkable that, President Polk recommended the tariff of 1846 on precisely the same ground that President Cleveland recommends a similar enactment now, namely, the surplus in the treasury was menacing the prosperty of the country. History is repea ing itself: By the ’way,” Mr. Blaine added, after a moment’s reflection, “it is worth notiee that Mr. Polk insisted on emptying the treasury by a free-trade tariff, then immediately rushed the country into debt' by borrowing 1150.000,000 for the Mexican war. I trost nothing may occur to repeat so disastrous a sequel to the policy recommended by Presidenri GeveMnd. But the uniform fate has been for fi% years past that the Democratic party when it goes out of power, always leaves an empty treasury, and when it returns to power always finds a full treasury.”

•there should be no redaction of the National revenue?” “No, what I have sajd implies the reverse. I would reduce it by a prompt repeal of, the tobacco tax, and would 'make here an there some changes in the tariff, not reduce protection, but wisely foster it.” “Would you you explain your meaning more folly?” “I mean,” said Mr. Blaine, “that no great system of revenue like otir tariff can operate with efficiency and equity Unless the changes of trade be closely watched and the law promptly adapted to those changes. But 1 would make no change that should impair the protective character of the whole body of the tariff laws. Four years ago, in the Act of 1883, we made changes of the character I have tried to indicate. If such changes were made, and the fortifying of our sea coast thus undertaken at a very moderate annual outlay no surplus would he found after that already accumulated had been disposed of. The outlay of money on fortifica--riona while doing , great service to the country, would give good work to many men.” “But what about the existing plus?” “The abstract of the message I have seen,” replied Mr. Blaine, “contains no reference to that point. I, therefore, make no comment further than to indorse Mr. Fred. Grant’s remark that a surplus is al ways, easier to handle than a ! deficit.” The reporter repeated the question whether the President’s recommends- 1 lion would not, if adopted, give us the [ i,advantage of a large increase on exports. “I only repeat,” answered Mr. Blaine, “that it would yearly enlarge our imports, while the only export it would seriously increase, would be our gold and „fM lmMy-. Ti mv would flow bounteously, just as it did under the tariff of 18-J6. The President’s recommends tion enacted into law would result, as did an experiment in drainage of a man who wished to turn a swauip into a productive field. He dug a drain into a neighboring river, but it happened, unfortunately, that the level of the river was higher than the level of the sw mp. .The consequence need not be told. A parallel would be found when tne President’s policy, in attempting to open a channel for an increase of exports, should simplv succeed in making a deluging inflow of fabrics, to the destruction of home industry.”