Tariffs Of 700 aud 1912.
{"character_count": 3271, "word_count": 571, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9355999827384949], "ccnet_perplexity": [1280.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
NO argument IS more used IN IaVoI
Of a high protective tariff, than tho one
founded upon the inability Of our manu-


fac,uring es.a blishmenis 10 compete With


those of England. Changes have been


rung upon such arguments FOR the last
halr century. Protect Us for time, and


we shall then gam strength enough, 10


enable US to compete successfully with


our great rival. Guard the manufactn.


ring interests from the ruinous competi>


lion Of the English capitalist and manu-
facturer, and we shall soon be able TO


supply enough for home consumption,


and compete with England in The mark


els OF the world. All this looked very


plausible, and the government has very


good naturedly given what was asked


protection.


A reasonable person would naturally


suppose thai, in the course of half a
century; these manufacturing establish.
ments would get out Of leading strings


that it was about time that this govern


ment should withdraw some of that fos-


tering care which has been Iavished up.
on these pets, and that they should re.
deem some Of their own pledges and
promises. comparison between The
first and last tariff,-the one Of 1890, &
the one of'42 shows, that instead of de.
creasing in their demands, they are in,
creasing, and still the cry is-giye-
give. We call The attention of candid
men 10 the contrast between our present
tariff law, and the one Of 1879. It rest
upon the authority Of Mr.. Kettell, Of N.
York, and enc OF The mos, intelligent
writer's in our country. We
would also respectfully invite the atten
ion of The ffera to this contrast, that
he may make il The foundation ofa tar
m article next week.


In order TO contrast the present tariff,
II constitutional point of view, with
hat oi'the early formation Of this Co
'ernment, it may be remarked that the
ariif Of 1890 was a protective tariff; that |
), protection was incidentally referred |
o. When, however, in May, 1889 thar
arifF was about becoming law, Mr. |
iadison moved 10 limit lis operations to
une 1, 1896, saying:


"That it is incompatible ,eih The Spiru
f Tie constitution and Of Republican
rlnciples TO pass Tcueaue law, unlimit
] in its duration. That if there was
o Limitation specified, however unequal
nd oppressive the operation Of The in,0.
NIGH become perpstuqL."


This motion was sustained, II 10 s,
howing what construction The trainers
{ the constitution put upon revenue
lritf, with the incidental protection it
fords This was the view Of the leader
{ the Democratic party. The views of
ieneral Hamilton Of the opposition, are
in his report Of March, 1909,
ecommending an increase OF duties for
le payment Of debt. He states:


"The addition Of % per cent. TO the du
i on the mass Of the articles now rated
I 5 per cent. will constitute an important,
hough not an excessive augmentation.
Nevertheless, it is proposed that it skaH
E temporary, and there is reasonable
round of expectation, that the cause
+ having recourse TO it will not be Of We
y long continuance. )"


Here are concurrent views that the
uty shall be small, and not Of long con,
inuance. The debt of the nation vas
hen $91 100000, and the population
100000. The debt is now S30.00O,~
100 and the population 100000 =
4et us look at the cooperative tariffs Of
I790 and i842: