Vol. XXII.

The New York Tribune differs from the Protectionist in its criticism of the last Republican platform for declaring the difference between foreign and domestic costs of production, with a profit added, the true measure of protective duties, and the Tribune endeavors to fortify its position by citing declarations from earlier platforms which it thinks are similar.

We did not say that something similar had not been resolved before, but that it should not be again, for it is inaccurate and incomplete. The Tribune does not answer our point that cheaper freight rates from foreign countries to the interior of our country than can be obtained from our seaboard to the interior need to be offset by duties just as much as lower costs of production abroad; neither does it attempt to explain what country is to be used for comparison or at what time the comparison is to be made; nor does it attempt to answer the question which we quoted from the Iron and Steel Bulletin as to how we are to be protected from foreign dumping at prices below the cost of production.

It talks about wages. Wages are only one element in the cost of production and sometimes have no bearing on competition, as, for ex

No. 254

ample, when by superior skill or machinery or organization, our greater output offsets the lower foreign wage, which occasionally happens for a short time. In fixing a protective duty, the one sufficient question should be, What are the imports? No matter why they come, if they come in large volume they transcend the benefits of competition and become a ruinous displacement. So many factors now enter into commerce that some of them are not easily discovered. We do not need to discover them if we adopt the simple and effective rule of heeding their results instead of their causes.

Japan's new tariff, which is being perfected by the parliament at Tokio, is distinctly protective in character and is undisguisedly intended to encourage and promote the domestic industries of Japan and to enable Japanese manufacturers to produce profitably a great volume of goods which are now imported from abroad. As textile fabrics are among the goods upon which the duties will be most increased, and as Japan's imports of them come chiefly from the United Kingdom, the menace of loss to British trade is seriSenator Bailey, in his speech copied in another part of this magazine, considers Republicans as protectionists, and Democrats as revenue only men. He says truly that when duties are fixed above the line of protection the mere question of high or low is not worth discussing, and when they are placed below that line the adjustment may vary without violating any principle.

But most of his Democratic associates act as though they believed that there is some protection even in low tariff. They talk low tariff for political effect and then labor for as high duties as they can get on products that compete with their own.

As a matter of fact, there is some protection in low duties if they are placed on articles of import that are like domestic products. "Tariff for revenue only" is a deceitful phrase unless the duties are placed on noncompetitive articles.

Every country needs revenue and the only way to raise it from customs without protecting home products is to place the duties on articles that have no counterparts at home and so must be imported if they are wanted. This is the principle upon which the British free trade tariff is based. But as the British government needs more revenue that duties on dissimilar products would raise, they tax similar products and then put an excise on the domestic product equal to the duty on the imported product, to countervail the protection, and thus they double the revenue and preserve free trade. If a tariff for revenue only is desired, this is an ideal system.

We do not think we misjudge Senator Bailey in thinking that a tariff for revenue only is not precisely what he desires. He favors low tariff and most of his party associates favor it. Senator Tillman advocated a duty on tea, because South Carolina has begun to grow tea. Facing the Republicans he said, I ask you fellers to vote for it because it will protect a domestic product, and turning to his Democratic colleagues he said, I ask you 'uns to vote for it because the revenue is needed, and the retail profits on imported tea are so great that the duty won't add to the prices, for the dealers will pay it. Neither side, however, voted with him, but the Republicans would have done so if they had been convinced that tea growing could be made profitable in this country.

Some people think we shall hear no further demand for free trade in this country and that low tariff instead of tariff for revenue only will be the demand in the next national Democratic platform. It may be, but whatever may be the fact in the South, there are some genuine free traders in the North and they are tremendously in earnest. Among them is the editor of the Lewiston, Me., Sun. He makes an appeal to his party which is so powerful, so interesting, so entertaining even, that we subjoin it in full:

That tariff-commission scheme is a pretty scheme to side-track tariff revision. The commission might work for years trying to find out statistical tables that are not worth finding out. And all those years the present high burdensome rates kept up. Then after the