Rensselaer Republican, Volume 23, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 July 1891 — CURRENT COMMENT. [ARTICLE]

CURRENT COMMENT.

TAXATION AND PEOPLE. The Republican and Democratic Methods of Raising Revenue Contrasted. Joe B. Cheadle in Indianapolis Journal. The Democratic papers and orators have again commenced a campaign of misrepresentation of the effects of the legislation of the Fifty-first Congress, and persist m declaring that the Republican policy is inimical to the best interest of the agricultural and labor classes. They insist over and over that, because the rates of duty levied upon imported goods, wares and merchandise in 1890 are higher than they were in 1789, therefore these duties are fixed in- the interest of monopolies, trusts, combines, etc., and against the best interests of the masses, without stopping to consider two vital facts which lie at the basis of all tariff legislation —first, the amount of revenue required by the government; second, that it is the principle upon which a duty is levied, ana. not the mere rate of the duty itself, that will decide the question of its effect upon the masses of the people.™ The friends of the protective tariff of 1798 made the rates of duty such as to bring into the national treasury the amount of money needed to defray the expenses of the government at that time. The money needed was a mere ly nominal sum compared with that required at this time, and the rates were levied to meet the governments wants then, just as they were levied in 1890 to meet the expenses of the government at that time. The Democrats charge; "Republicans with extravagance, hence I shall, for the purpose of this argument, take the appropriations of the Fiftieth, the last Democratic Congress, as the basis of the needs of the government, The appropriations of that Congress left a deficiency of $25,321,907.35 for the Fifty-first Congress to make good and it appropriated $817,963,859.80 for the fiscal years 1880 and 1890. Given this vast sum of money to raise, how can it be raised under our Ponstitution? Two, and only two, modes are authorized: first, to apportion this vast sum among the States in proportion to the population—not the wealth, but the population of the States. Indiana’s share would be fourteen and one-half millions of dollars a year. While it is true that an effort will be made to justify the new State revenue law, that largely increases the. tax burden of our farms and lands, I do not, think there can be found one person or paper that would try to justify that mode, hence it will be dismissed. The second mode is to levy tariff duties upon imported goods, wares and merchandise. There are two systems of levying duties: one to levy duties for the sole purpose of raising revenue to defray the expenses of government. This is called a revenue tariff, or a tariff, for revenue only. The second mode is called a protective tariff. The Republican party always has and now favors the protective system, and why? Because the Republican party believes In permitting all the necessaries of life that we do not and cannot produce to come in free of duty; and Bjs could not be permitted under a revenue tariff, for the reason that a revenue tariff levies duty for revenue, and upon all imported articles.

The Republican policy is to levy the traiff duties that while the sum of money required to meet the expenses of the government shall be brought into the treasury, they shall be, so far as possible, so levied that they ‘ will not be a tax on the consumer at all, while they do protect American .manufacturers. This has been and ■is the Republican policy. Let these facts be kept in mind at all times in considering the tariff question. A 1 tariff duty may be a tax on the consumer, or it may not be a tax on I consumers at all. The consumer I may pay a part of the duty and the importer a part, or the importer may have to pay all of the tariff. The I character of the article upon which the duty is levied will determine who shall pay the tariff duty upon the article.

To illustrate: We do not produce a gourd of tea or coffee in the United tates; hence a tariff on these articles would all be paid by the consumer, and why? Because, as we do not produce either of these articles,there could be no competition between home and foreign producers to regulate the price, and the tariff would add to their cost the exact sum of the tariff duty levied, and would therefore be paid by the consumer. The tariff upon wool and woolens is paid in part by the consumer and in part by the importer, and why? We consume the wool of 100,000,000 of sheep; of this quantity we produce the wool of forty-five millions of sheep, and buy abroad the wool of fifty five millions. Producing, as we do, nearly one-half the amount we consume, this becomes a prime factor in regulating the price of the wool we buy abroad.; it prevents foreign wool-growers from fixing their Own price upon their wool, hence the consumer of wool pays a part of the tariff and the importer a part. Upon every article that we produce, all that we consume, the importer pay's all of the tariff and the consumer none, and why? Because horn? competition and the laws of supply and demand absolutely control its price to the cqnsumer. Let us illustrate by two items of general use—prints,, or calicoes, and steel nails. Many years ago. when we relied entirely upon foreign manufac turers for calico, it cost at retail 50 cents a a yard. A tariff of 5 cents a yard was put on calico. American print works were at once established.

and as their capacity to make all the calico we used increased, its price went down, down, down, until finally we made all we used, when the price fell to the amount of the tariff, and is now less than the tariff, except on one’quality. Costing no more than the tariff,, how can-the consumer pay the tariff on calico? A few years ago nails began to be made of steel. It was a new industry, and there was no tariff on steel nails. We had to rely on foreign steel nail makers, and they cost us 8 cents per pound. The Republican Congress put a tariff of 4 cents a pound on steel nails, and now mark the result. This measure of protection enabled American iron-mills to change their machinery so that they could make steel wire. With this result American mills can make all the steel nails we consume, and the wholesale price is less than three cents per pound. How can the tariff on steel nails be a tax on the consumer when we make and sell them at retail for less than the tariff, and less than cut iron nails formerly sold for, ...... .... There are about four thousand articles mentioned in the McKinley tariff law. One cannot in this-arti-cle go this great list, embracing every possible form of article in use in all our varied commerce, to show just bow each article is affected by the McKinley law, yet this general statement can be safely made: The safneprinciple that applies to the three classes I have named runs through every section of the law. The free list under it is larger than ever before and embraces every necessary of life we do not and can not produce. The duties are levied so as to protect American manufactures, and, as far as possible, make foreign manufacturers, who do not pay any taxes for the support of the national, State, county* township or municipal governments, pay a tariff duty to Uncle Sam before they can offer their goods, wares and merchandise for sale to our people; and is not this a wise policy? I think so. We of Indiana, who remember our condition in the fifties, know that our great State could not make a covered buggy without sending abroad for tne spring*, axles, tire, cloth and leather for the top, and that a single-seat covered buggy cost S3OO and a twoseat covered carriage SSOO or $600; that we did not then make a pound of bar steel or iron, and that the pride of Indiana manufactures was her butternut jeans, casinets and flannels. We were entirely dependent upon others for all our manufactures. We enjoyed the luxury of a revenue tariff —aud what was our condition? We had precious little money, and it of no certain value on the morrow. Wehadnog.avelroads, no home market for the product of the garden, orchard and farm, no splendid farm-houses, no magnificent school system, ho manufacturing cities and trade centers, no general prosperity, no individual or State credit, and the name Hoosier was a by-word from Maine to Texas.

The war came, and with it a protective tariff. Forty thousand out of two hundred thousand of our brave boys who went down to war never came back; twenty-six thousand of them were killed or died, and fourteen thousand are mustered among the unknown, while as many more were wounded in health, so that they could not thereafter work, yet, notwitstanding all thisrphysical loss, look and behold the change that twenty-five years of protection has wrought for Indiana. Then we manufactured nothing; now we have the largest wagon, carriage, plow and plate-glass works in the world. Then we did not make a bar of steel or iron; now we make ingots of steel, steel rails, bar steel, steel nails, and every form of iron and steel manufacture. Then we had no gravel roads; now one can be found almost every mile as we journey through the country. Then our farmers had no beautiful homes, elegantly furnished; now they live as well as the richest. Then they came to town on horseback or in a farm wagon; now they ride in covered carriages, with lap robes to keep off the dust. Then they had no hopie market for the products of the garden, and orchard, and farm; now their butter, eggs and poultry bring them more money than their total sales of all they then produced. Then we were the laughingstock of the Nation; now the name Hoosier is honored and respected everywhere. At that time men exerted themselves to get together enough money to pay the meagre State and county tax-levy; now they pay more taxes in one year than they then did in ten. Then we had no individual or State credit; now no State or people has a better credit. What has wrought this great change in twenty-five brief years? The protective tariff law has been the beacon light ,that has led us out of poverty into the sunlight of prosperity; out from obscurity into the renown we now enjoy. Protection made it possible to build up our manufactures—this diversified labor; and, as labor becomes diversified the demand increases; and, as it increases, laborers receive additional labor, and with it labor’s reward. When the war began the laborers of the North were poor; to-day they own, free of debt, more than one million homes, and also have on deposit in the banks more than $1,500,000,000 —a sum of money equal to all the money in circulation in the United States. These lobcrers, in these twenty-five years, have lived better, dressed better, given tb°ir children a better ed: cation than th • laborers of any other nation uu earth, and yet over and al o .-e their expense of living, under t'ie aegis of protection, they have bo ugh. t and jlaia for more

than a million homes, and they haver saved, and have on over, •1.500,000,0 C in the banks of the North; and yet there are men ana papers Who cry aloud that protection! impoverishes the laborers and farmers of the country. Laborers alone have saved in addition to one million of homes, and now have on deposit enough money to buy and pay for our entire national debt and have hundreds of millions of dollars left. They saved this vast sum in twentyfive yeara, and this period covers the time our Nation resumed specie payments, with all the losses it entailed. The best friend of labor can only hope that the future will bring to the wage-workers of the Nation an equal measure of prosperity with that which has crowned their efforts under the Republican protective policy since 1865. The Republican party has always been the friend of labor. Its first party measure was the homestead law, that has given more than one million of families a home. It made labor honorable by abolishing human slavery. It gave us the protective policy. To-day it stands as resolute-, ly by every distinctive measure and policy that will benefit the masses as it has in the past stood by freedom, the unity of the Nation, national honor and credit, and by the American industrial policy that has quadrupled our wealth in twenty-five years. Judged by its acts, it is labor’s best political friend, and merits the,.united support of all the bread-winners in America. PROTECTION AND THE PARMER. Farmers are repeatedly told that protection cannot benefit them and that the Republican partv is not legislating for the protection of their interests. Talk is cheap, charges are easily made. Let the facts speak for themselves. The policy of the party has .been to foster manufactures; to create a home market for the products of the garden, orchard and farm. No one can deny that Pennsylvania is the most distinctively Republican and protection of any State in the Union. In that State protection has had full sway, and millions of money have sought investment in her mines, railroads and factories. Years ago a Republican protective Legislature revised the. revenue law of that State. How did; it treat the farms and lands of that State? Did it increase the State taxes on farms and lands? No. Did; it let the levy stand as it found it? No. It did, however, exempt its. farms and lands from the payment of any State taxes. It laid all the State burden on its railroads, corporations, manufactories and money,, and let its farms and lands go free? Last winter a Democratic Legislature met in our State and undertook to revise our State tax law- They went into power on the plea that the Republican Congress had enacted a tariff law that would rob the many for the benefit of the few, and that they would protect labor and become the special champions of the farmers. How did that Legislature keep its pledges made the people? How did ft fulfill its promises? Democrats proclaimed that Republican legislation was crushing the life out of agriculture. Did it lessen the burden the farmers have to bear? Promises are easily made and more easily broken. Actions speak louder than promises. What did Democracy do to make easier and lighter the burdens Indiana farmers have to carry? The Democrats said: “The old State tax law is a fraud; we will enact one that shall be just”—and this is their idea of justice. They decreased the levy on corporations and corporate property, and increased the State taxes on farms and lands not less than 50 per cent. Heretofore farms and lands have paid about $700,000 a year for the support of the State government. One would think, if it is true that the Republican party was enacting laws that rob farmers, the Democratic legislators, who mad? loud professions of friendship for farmers, would have lessened the State burden for them. This is how they they treaty them: Firstly, they raised the State levy 50 per cent., and then said, “You farmers do not pay on a proper valuation; we will increase the value of your farms for taxation,” : and they did it until Indiana farms | and lands will pay not less than sl,- ■ 200,000 this year to maintain the ' State government. Some one has said Democracy is a tax. I think Indiana farmers can justly claim that it is a grievous tax on their farms. Farms and lands in Republican, protective Pennsylvania, exempt from all State taxes, vs. a tax levy of more than a million dollars a year in Democratic Indiana, is an object lesson that should be talked about in every farmers’ club in the State, until all our farmers see the facts as they exist. This is an economic age. The party that cannot touch elbows with the people, that cannot meet the issues of the hour and legislate in the line of justice and honesty, cannot i hope to live. What do Indiana farj mers think of this increased levy of $500,000 upon their farms and lands, when the same act largely decreases the levy upon corporations? The protection and State administration that protects farmers to the amount of a i million dollars a year, even if it is Republican, must be a very good one indeed, and I trust that Indiana farmers, who seem to be awakened by the heavy burden they are made to carry, will decide .to have it in 1892. Cornflower blue is favored by fashton, but it is not pretty, and it is as trying as silver gray or sea green. It is undeniably crude and “uncomplimentary” to most people, though attempts arc made to soften its ad inittpd asperity by the introduction f soft creams, fawu, biscuit eto