The Tariff in Our TimesTarbell, Ida M. (Ida Minerva)
History
The Tariff in Our Times
Tarbell, Ida M. (Ida Minerva)
Tariff -- United States -- History
But Randall was dealing with a bigger force and a bigger man in 1883
than he realized. John G. Carlisle, his opponent, was probably the
nearest approach to a statesman then in the United States Congress. Born
on a Kentucky farm, he had spent the days of his early youth at farm
work, the nights over books. He had become a school teacher and in his
leisure had read law. Admitted to the bar, he had continued to study
until he was called the ablest lawyer in the state. Admitted to the
state legislature, he had become a leader of his party by force of
knowledge and intellectual vigor. Carlisle had first entered the House
in 1877, fourteen years after Randall, and he immediately made a deep
impression on the country by his thorough mastery of subjects, his
clearness of statement, his gravity and candor in argument, and his
freedom from the trickery and deceits of partisan politics. In the
spring of 1882 he made a speech against a Tariff Commission which, as an
argument for thorough tariff reform, was one of the ablest of the
period. It really framed a strong logical position for the Democrats.
His speech in 1883 when the Kelley Bill was under consideration gave his
position in the tariff:
“In the broad and sweeping sense which the term usually implies I am
not a free-trader,” he said. “I will add that in my judgment it will
be years yet before anything in the nature of free trade would be
wise or practicable in the United States. When we speak of this
subject we refer to approximate free trade which has no idea of
cutting the growth of home industries, but simply of scaling down
the inequalities of the tariff schedules where they are utterly out
of proportion to the demands of that growth. After we have calmly
stood up and allowed monopolists to grow fat we should not be asked
to make them bloated. Our enormous surplus revenues are illogical
and oppressive. It is entirely undemocratic to continue these
burdens on the people for years and years after the requirements of
protection have been met and the representatives of these industries
have become incrusted with wealth.”
That is, Carlisle saw clearly that certain evils inherent in high
protection, evils against which Garfield and all the Republican tariff
reformers had so often warned, were becoming realities. The word
monopoly was already in everybody’s mouth, for at this time the
impossibility of preventing the over-production and consequent
depressions which are the logical results of an artificial stimulus like
a high tariff, except by some artificial check like a combination to
limit output and hold up prices, had been completely demonstrated.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account