Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 5, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 February 1894 — FLIMSY OBJECTIONS. [ARTICLE]

FLIMSY OBJECTIONS.

Weakness of the Opposition to the Income Tax la Apparent. Whenever the opponents of an income tax begin to formulate objections to it, Instead of repeating foolish parrot cries, the weakness of their case is quickly apparent. Mr. Croker says it would "have a tendency to drive rich men from the city.” But where would they go to escape it? *Does the boss not grasp the fact that it is to be a national tax? The Democrats of the Cotton Exchange say that it is “inquisitorial in its character,” and that it “can be justified by no less a necessity than war requirements.” Is it more inquisitorial than the tariff law, under which trunks, handbags and persons are searched, or than the internal-rev-enue law, which takes possession of a distiller’s property and holds it under lock and key until the taxes are paid? As for the “war requirements," does not the pension bill of $110,000,000 a year, more than $100,000,00) of which is the growth of the last fourteen years of peace, justify a war tax? Must all 'the war and peace requirements be met by taxes on the necessaries of the people? Others object that the Democratic party “was not charged with the duty of passing an income-tax law,” and never declared in favor of it. But it was charged with the duty of reducing taxes on the consumption "of the people and of meeting the expenses of the Government, it cannot do this without imposing new taxes. A new emergency has arisen. A deficiency ha 9 occurred under the McKinley law. Shall it be met by new taxes or higher taxes on the necessaries of life, or on the luxuries, the vices, and indulgences of the people? The Democrats in Congress choose the latter alternative. And if that is not Democratic, nothing is Democratic.—New York World. No Alarm in Minnesota. We commend to the attention of our Republican friends who persist in ignoring the facts with respect to the condition of the iron-ore industry and the effect of one of the wisest and most beneficial provisions of tae Wilson bill the following remarks in the Minneapolis Tribune (Republican) concerning the assertion of Capt. McDougal that “the Mesaba Range will ship g,500,000 tons of iron ore to Eastern ports this coming season, Wilson bill or no Wilson bill:” This statement from so excellent an authority as Capt. McDougal shows howr ridiculous is the calamity howl of those who pretend that free Iron ore will close the Minnesota mines. But we need not depend upon the authority of Capt. McDougal alone. Since the Wilson hill was first announced, mines have been opened for the winter on both the Mesaba and Vermillion Ranges, and work given to hundreds of workmen. Work Is now proceeding on the Mesaba at far greater blast than one year agOL Whatever the weeping and walling Jeremiahs may be saying and doing, the mine proprietors are not bothering tbelr heads about the tariff. They are getting ready for the greatest mining season which Minnesota has ever known, as If the Wilson bill did not exist. And why should they tremble and shiver? They have the richest ore that Is mined. It is located most conveniently for Cheap and expeditious working. It exists In quantity never surpassed. They have the most modern machinery and possess a quality of ore which permits a use of machinery that In foreign mines is not possible. As a result of these causes, they mine a first-class quality of ore at the lowest cost of production known In the history of the industry at home and abroad. The tariff may come or the tariff may go. but our ore will go on to Pittsburg. It may be that Minnesota ores will be brought further East than Pittsburg, even when foreign ores shall be on the free list. —New York Times. The Sugar Duty. It is a mistake to suppose that the action of the House of Representatives, in committee of the whole, making sugar entirely free tends still further to reduce the revenues. If the bill as passed shall make all sugar free and repeal the bounty on American sugars, the Treasury will be greatly benefited in comparison with the existing law. These bounties, due next month, will amount, according to Mr. Carlisle’s estimates, to $15,000,0,0. This measures very nearly the saving to the Treasury which would result from the adoDtion of the Warner amendment. The existing duty is on refined sugars, and the revenue derived from it in 1893 was only $103,950. This duty is in the interest of the sugar trust. The McKinley act gave to that monopoly free raw material and taxed tompetiDg refined sugars and grocery sugars from abroad. The effect of this policy has been so enormously to increase toe profits of the trust that even high protectionists are turning upon it and denouncing its greed. In order to be perfectly fair to this tariff-made monopoly, we quote what the Philadelphia Press says of it in comment ing on the action of, the committee of the whole: This sweeping slaughter cf Industries is due simply and solely to the attempt of the owners and managers of the American Sugar Refining Company to declare dividends on 880,000,000 of watered capital when their plant was not worth otrer $20,000,000 to $25,000,000. On this shameful overvaluation the American Sugar Refining Company declared In 1892 0 per cent, on the common and 7 per cent on the preferred stock. In March, 1893, an extra dividend of 10 per cent., besides a quarterly dividend of 3 per cent, was declared It is not surprising that pending a decision bv Congress on the sugar duty the annual

meeting of this great monopoly adjourned a few days ago without making a report The Warner amendment was a straight and hard blow at this trust, and if adopted will save the Treasury at least $15,000,000 a year. A Discredited Humbug. In proposing the repeal of th& reciprocity clause of the McKinley act the Ways and Means Committee and their Democratic associates have taken J the first step toward the abolition of a preposterous humbug. The reciprocity clause is practically repealed by the placing of tea, sugar, hides and coffee on the free list, but it is the duty of the Democratic Congress to set the seal of their disapproval on the wretched pretense of fair trade and "of increased commerce embodied in the dishonest and un-American reciprocity policy of the Harrison administration. No word should remain on the statute book to remind the country of the day when Congress turned over to the President any part of its power to legislate. That is just what the reciprocity clause does. It transfers a power to the Executive which the Constitution conferred upon Congress, and therefore it is contrary to the fundamental law of the land. Moreover, it gave to foreign governments the right to declare when and on what articles the people of this country should be taxed. The right to levy taxes appertains to our own free citizenship. It is the right for which our forefathers fought, and it has never been surrendered except in the reciprocity clause of the McKinley act. Finally, the reciprocity clause was never intended to increase commerce or to promote trade relations between this country and foreign countries. It was a humbugging device ot Mr. Blaine to save his party from the rising tide of popular indignation against high protective tariffs. The discredited humbug should go.

Gospel Truth by a Funny Man. “Champ” Clark of Missouri is one of the funny men of the House of Representatives, and on Friday he made an impromptu speech on the tariff question which, judging from the merriment which it created, especially on the Republican side ol the House, was considered one of the funniest efforts of his life. There was something besides “fun" in “Champs" speech, however, and we desire to call the attention of our Republican friends to the fact What we refer to will be found in the following paragraph: Whom the Rods would destroy they first make mad,” and that Is the predicament of the protectionists of this House. You refused the moderate reduction proposed la the Morrison bilL You refused the mild provisions of the Mills bllL You are kicking against the moderate reductions In this bllL You propose to beat this bill by the combination of Republicans and assistant' Republicans You may do It. If you defeat this bill you will build up a free trade party In this country, and men with brains In their head, courage in their heart and love of humanity In their soul will rend the temple of protection till not one stone shall be left on another In that robbers’ roost. Champ Clark may be very funny, and it strikes us that he is, but in the paragraph just quoted he has taken up a phase of the tariff situation that the Republican partisans who are doing their utmost to resist the demands of the people and to keep the country chained to its idols of monopoly would do well to bear in mind. Revblutions do not go backward.—N. Y. Mercury.

Protection Fetters. In a speech at Leeds a few years ago Mr. Gladstone said: So lona, as America adheres to the protective system our commercial supremacy Is secure No nation can wrest it from you while America fetters her strong hands, and, thus fettered, is compelled to compete with you who are free In neutral markets. This is no doubt true. England did not achieve her industrial and commercial supremacy in Europe till she adopted the policy of free trade. When she took that important forward step it was in the face of the same sort of calamity predictions as are now being uttered by protectionists in this country. But none of the evil prophecies were fulfilled. Great Britain waxed strong under the stimulus of trade freedom, and, while paying higher wages than any of the high protection countries of the continent, her commercial and industrial supremacy has been unquestioned. She does not fear the “cheap labor” of continental Europe. She has demonstrated the truth that the highest priced labor is often and commonly the cheapest for employers. America's most dangerous European competitors in manufacturing are not the low-wage countries, but those that pay the highest wages.—Quincy Herald. All attempts of the monopolists to impose a tax upon iron ore were beaten in the House of Representatives this week. Our alleged representative, Sereno Payne, fought for. monopoly as usual, but in vain. free coal and free sugar for the people? We are making progress. Whoop!—Cayuga Chief. —i Under a McKinley tariff a man whose income is SSOO a year may pay SIOO in taxes and bounties. Under an income tax a $5,000 income would pay S2O, or 2 per cent, on all above $4,000. There is a deficit to fill up and the SSOO incomes have about all they can stand of discrimination. Let us equalize.