Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 October 1882 — TARIFF TOPICS. [ARTICLE]

TARIFF TOPICS.

[From the Indianapolis Sentinel.] The Republican party favors a tariff for protection. The Democratic party advocates a tariff for revenue. There is no free-trade party in the United States. The Democratic party is not a free-trade party, nor is it a protectivetaiiff party. The Democratic party advocates a constitu'ional tariff, which is a tariff for revenue. Tariff means tax. Taxes are levied so: - the support of governments, to defray the legitimate expenses of governments, and when levied for any other piupoTe they are despotic, and ought not to be tolerated in a free government. The Republican party favors a tariff which robs the poor man for the benefit of the rich man; a tariff like the Hubbell assessments —it plunders one class, the workers, the wage people, to raise money for which there is no legitimate use under heaven, and, when money so raised is in tlxe treasury, it becomes a source of corruption, of profligacy, and is squandered for the benefit of rings and rascals. The fact is so well established that the consumer pays the tax on the goods which he purchases that none but fools and knaves contravert it. Still, the Republican party, that it may continue to rob the poor for the benefit of the. rich, declares that high tax makes articles upon which it is levied cheaper to the consumer. But John Quincy Adams, fifty years ago, in his celebrated report upon manufactures, said that “the doctrine that duties of import cheapen the price of the articles upon which they are levied seems to conflict with the first dictates of common sense. The duty constitutes a part of the price of the whole mass of the article in the market. It is substantially paid upon the article of domestic manufacture as well as upon that of foreign production. Upon one it is a bounty, upon the other a burden, and the repeal of the tax must operate as an equivalent reduction of the price of the article, whether foreign or domestic. We say so long as the importation continues the duty must be paid b,v the purchaser of the article.” As we have remarked, none but fools and knaves deny the absolute correctness of such conclusions. Since it is necessary for the Gov ,-nment to liavo revenue, and since a tariff tax is the easiest method, all things considered, to obtain it, the Democratic party favors the lowest, tax practicable, that evey unnecessary burden may be removed from the people. The Republican party antagonizes the Democratic policy and advocates a higli protective tax, not lo obtain revenue, but to increase the wealth of monopolists by levying burdensome taxes upon consumers. Bearing in mind the incontrovertible fact that consumers pay the tariff tax, the reader will be prepared to understand the following from the great speech of Senator Coke, in the United States Senate last February. He said: “During the fiscal year just closed, the value of dutiable merchandise imported into this country from abroad, as the Treasurer’s report shows, was $448,061,587.95. Upon this merchandise was collected at the Custom House $193,800,897.67, being an* average of 434 per cent. This is the entire revenue of the Government derived from the tariff for the last fiscal year. Now, what amount do the manufacturers receive from the tariff? By the census of 1870 it was estimated that $4,000,000,000 worth of manufactured articles were consumed annually in the United States. The figures for 1880 are not yet published so as to be accessible, but following the ratio of increase in population and everything else, they must now amount to at least $5,000,000,000 iu each year. All these manufactures being increased in cost to the consumer by the amount of tariff duty, which, as I have before stated, is an average of 45 per cent., which goes to manufacturers. It is easy to see on that basis what the share of the manufacturers Avould be. But I will discount that per cent, so as to more than cover all contingencies and all drawbacks, and say they only receive, under the tariff, 2§ per cent, on the sum total of manufactured articles consumed iu the United States, and it amounts to the enormous sum of $1,250,000,000 annually. And the amount increases each year with the population and trade of the country. So. for the year 1881, the results of tariff taxation and the distribution of its proceeds may be tabulated thus: Revenue received by the Government, $193,800,897.67; bounty received by manufacturers, $1,250,000,000. So that, for every single dollar paid into the national treasury under the existing tariff, $6.50, at the lowest calculation, go into the pockets of the manufacturers. ” It would be difficult to state the case clearer. The facts and figures sustain the argument. This infamous tariff that robs one class to enrich another class is supported and advocated by the Republican party of Indiana, its organs and its candidates, and is opposed by the Democratic party. Senator Coke savs:

6f the $193,890,879.67 of revenue collected for the Government under this tariff for 1880, six commodilies and classes of commodities yielded 69.01 per oent of the whole. I quote from the report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics on our foreign commerce of-1880: “Of the total amount of duties collected on imports, the duties on sugar and molasses amounted to $47,984,032.84, or 24.78 per cent.; the duties on wool and manufactures thereof amounted to $37,285,624.78, or 14.10 per cent.; the duties on iron and steel and manufactures thereof amounted to $21,461,534.- 4, or 11.09 per cent.; the duties on manufactures of silk amounted to $19,038,665.81. or 9.81 per cent.; the duties on manufactures of cotton amounted to $10,825,115.21, or 5.59 percent., and the duties on flax and manufactures thereof amount©3 to $6,984,374.99, or 3.60 per cent. “The duties collected on these six commodities . and c'asses of commodities amounted to $133,580,347 88, and constituted 69.01 per cent of the total amount of duties collected on imports.” No better evidence than this official statement is needed to show the utterly reckless perversion of the taxing power exercised in the constructing of the existing tariff. Why is it that it takes all the balance of the dutiable articles on the long tariff Ist to make up the remaining $69,000,000 of the revenue received by the Government, when these six commodities produce so much? The answer is plain. The range of duties is so high, so extremely protective, that very few foreign goods are imported; so the ' Government receives very little revenue: but these same excessive duties are added to the price of tlie doibest ic article, and the whole of it goes into the pocket of the manufacturer, because the people are compelled to buy. Take the article of blankets as an example. They are universally used throughout tho country. The duty on them is from 85 to 104 per cent It is estimated that $20,000,000 worth of blankets are bought annually in

this country; yet for the year 1881 official reports show that only $1,319.08 worth of blankets were imported from abroad, and the revenue of the Government on that importation amounted to only sl,oSii.oß, The 100 per cent duty was added to the cost of blankets made in the Uuited States, and was pocketed by the manufacturers, the people having it to'pay. Flannel, another article entering into universal consumption, worn in some form or other by all our people, of every age, sex and condition—an article for which a very much greater amount must be paid annually than is expended for blankets. The duty on flannels ranges from 8S to 95 per cent, and is prohibitory. For the year 188 > the flannels of every character and description import- d from abroad amounted to $8,082,98 worth, and the revenue coming to the Government to $2,435.06, the manufacturers again receiving the duty from the people, and the Government nothing virtually, Wool hats, such as our people generally wear, are taxed in the tariff 20 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem, compound duty, and not one was imported. The Government derived not 1 cent of revenue, but the people paid the duty in the price of the article to the manufacturer. So with shirts, drawers and other knit goods so generally worn; duty prohibitory, and none importe'd. So with shot; duty 2«< cents per pound; revenue from shot, only SOI.OO. So with back-saws, crosscut-saws and hand-saws; the entire duty derived from them for the Government, $02.73; duty prohibitory. Horseshoe nails: duty 5 cents per pound; prohibitory; revenue, slo.B'. Wire (such as our people use for fencing): duty prohibitory; importation and revenue nominal. Screws for wood: duty prohibitory; importation and revenue nominal. Cut nails and spikes: duty prohibitory; importation and revenue nominal. Galvanized or coated iron: duty prohibitory; importation and revenue nominal. Cast and wrought-iron hinges, board-nails, rivets and bolts f duty prohibitory; importation and revenue nominal. Bessemer steel rails, universally used now In construction of our railroads. The United States manufactures these rails more largely than any other country in the world. Price of these rails in Eflgland, from SBO to $35 per ton; our tariff duty, S2B per ton; price in the United States, $07.50 per ton. Domestic produce consumed in the United States during 1880, 1,112,090 tons. By comparing price in England and the United States, it will be seen that every dollar of the duty was added to the domestic product. Bounty to the manufacturer in this one article alone, $81,155,320, which is refund d by the people, with interest doubly compounded annually, to the railroad companies in increased charges for freight and passengers. The duty prohibitory until the unprecedented amount of railroad building now going on commenced, and will be again as soon as it subsides. So with heavy cotton goods, universally used by our poorer people, in which our manufacturers excel the world. Duty prohibitory; importation and revenue nominal. Common soap, of universal consumption: compound duty of 1 cent per pound and bO per cent, ad valorem. Toilet soap: duty 10 cents per pound and 25 per cent, ad valorem. Millions of dollars worth of these two articles are sold to the people annually with thpse compound duties added to the price; vet the revenue dmived from them is only $145,722.02. v I could go on and fill pages with quotations from the tariff list of articles of daily use among the people with duties so excessive as virtually to exclude importation and thereby destroy revenue, but on which the consumer pays the duty to the manufacturer in the price of the domestic article. A tariff- framed like this, which taxes the people from head to foot as this does in behalf of full-grown, fully-developed manufacturing industries as ours are, able to compete with the world in open market, is subversive of every principle of justice between men as it is destructive of the revenues of the Government. This is protection, socalled. I call it robbery under the forms of law. Such are some of the iniquitous burdens imposed by the present Republican tariff, which the Democratic party is seeking to have revised, ancl which the Republican party, monopolists and Arthur’s Tariff Commission are striving to maintain and perpetuate. It is a tariff of abominations— a tariff constructed for robbery as infamous as Hubhell’s blackmail proceedings—a tariff which legalizes cviuio for the purpose of corruption.