MONOPOLY OF TRADE THE TARIFF. 6ll 



evidence of the truth of this observation let the reader ask 

 his neighbors and acquaintances what position President 

 Cleveland occupies in relation to the subject, and if he is 

 acquainted with the provisions of the Mills tariff bill now 

 pending in Congress.. Ask them if they know what the 

 present duty is on iron, steel, hemp, wool or woolen 

 manufactures, and what the Mills bill proposes to make it 

 on the same articles. 



A few days since your correspondent put the question 

 to a prominent citizen who aspires to represent his county 

 in the Legislature, and he confessed that he had never read 

 the Mills bill. A Democratic county convention endorsed 

 the President's message and the Mills bill and nine- tenths 

 of them were not acquainted with either. It is only by a 

 diligent study of this, as of all other questions, that we are 

 enabled to form an intelligent opinion. 



In glancing back over the platforms of the political 

 parties we learn that there are three distinct systems advo- 

 cated, viz: 



A Tariff for Protection. 



A Tariff for Revenue only and Free Trade. 



The first of these systems may be defined as a tariff 

 imposed upon such articles as are manufactured or pro- 

 duced in this country as will, either partially or totally, 

 prohibit the importation from other countries of like 

 articles; thus shutting out from our home markets foreign 

 competition. 



A tariff for revenue only might be defined as an adva- 

 lorem import duty levied on all foreign importations, 

 without regard to any special industry, and for the sole 

 purpose of raising the necessary revenues of a government. 

 This system, while it might afford incidental protection to 

 some articles, would leave others practically unprotected ; 

 while it would be levied alike on articles not produced in 

 this country, such as tea, coffee, etc. 



