Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 May 1888 — NEW METHODS OF REDUCTION. [ARTICLE]

NEW METHODS OF REDUCTION.

Reform of the Tai'ifl’ and Repeal of the Internal Taxes. [From the Chicago Tribune.] How much would the Mills bill save a man of family in actual money? This is a jAactical and important question, but one not easily to be answered, since the expenses of families widely differ. A Washington statistician, however, has made a general estimate in tbe case of a farmer cultivating fifty acres of wheat, and having a wife and three children to support. As between the present tariff and the tariff proposed in the Mills bill the difference to the farmer would amount to about $l5B a year. The removal of the tariff on tin plates would enable him to save $2 on the goods he buys to the price of which the value of tin plates contributes. He would save $3 on earthenware and glassware by the reduction of the duties; $2.50 on salt for his family and cattle by the repeal of the salt tax; $4 on sugar by the rearrangement of the sugar schedule; $lO on lumber by placing it on the free list. The readjustment of the textile schedules would allow him to save $35 on woolen outer clothing; sl2 on flannels, shawls, blankets, and underclothing; sl7 on cotton goods; $52.50 on jute bagging and binding twine. And on miscellaneous minor articles there would be a saving of about S2O. Now, $l5B is quite a substantial sum to any farmer. Suppose, however, instead of reducing the tariff the revenue should be cut down by repealing the internal taxes on whisky. 'The tax is 90 cents a gallon, and there are sixty “drinks” to the gallon. Assuming the largest possible saving to the consumer, the repeal of the tax would take a cent and a half off each “drink.” In order to save as much by that sort of reduction as by tariff reform, the farmer would have to take 10,533 “drinks” a year, or twentyeight a day. Probably his wife and children would have to help him effect the saving. At all events, we have here a good illustration of the comparative advantages that would accrue to the average man by the two proposed methods of revenue reduction—reform of the tariff and repeal of the internal taxes. The census tables of 1880 show that the average of the tariff duties on imports is more than double the total amount paid in wages for the production of like articles in this country. The enormous excess needlessly exacted from consumers, and which labor never sees or hears of, is pocketed by some persons—presumably the trusts aud combines whose lobby among the Congressmen are howling for perpetuation of -war duties in time of peace and pretend they are needed to pay high wages to workmen; but the workmen receive only 20 per cent, of the value of the manufactures produced, while the average protection is 47 per cent. Why is 47 per cent, tax on the consumer required to pay 20 per cent, wages to the workmen? Will FreeWhisky Kelley, Cannon, McKinley, Burrows, or Browne be kind enough to explain it, as common people do not comprehend the necessity for taking so much bounty out of the pockets of consumers?— Chicago Tribune.