Wheeling times and advertiser. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1839-1849, 1846-06-18

the tariff of 1924 The average gross revenue
was S22. 7o3 900. Under the tariff of 1924,
which its opponents at the time predicted Z
would ruin the revenue aud compel resort
10 direct taxation, the average for the years
OF its duration was S27 ,929 900. Next came
the "bill OF denominations" the "black tariff
Of 1925" which il was said would bankrupt
the treasury beyond all question, aud what
was the resul2 The average revenue during
the four years OF its operation increased TO .
$50, SAL 900. Then came the compromise ]
bill of 1888. which brought the tariff down by |
biennial reductions, to a horizontal duty of !
20 per cont. and what was its effect upon the !
revenuel The revenue declined pari pasu
with the tariff. yielding for ten years AN aver
age OF S2l ,476, 900, and the last year OF its o.
peration under the 20 per cent. duty only sic
bS6.OOO gross revenue, netting Sl2, 75S, 900,
while our expenditures were more than dou-
bic that amount. Thencame the present ia
riff, which yielded more than S32, 900 900
gross-S27 800 900 net revenue. Now what
does our profound Secretary of the Treasury
propose to do TO improve the revenue1-
MaIk IT! He proposes to reduce the tariff to
an average OF about 20 per cent, which sex
perlence proves" he says, will give the high
est revenue, and yet this very report shows the
iact that 20 per cent. taraif in 1912, yielded
only Sl2,SS0,000, while the present tarig
yielded S27 ,52S,0 Thus, according to the
Secretary, ttcclre is more than t,renly scpenl
A new discovery in arithmetic. The new
Tree trade system of finance says "reduce
the duties TO increase the revenue" doc
trine not only urged upon Congress BY the Sc
cretary and 1.-The Union" his organ, but BY
all the advocates of this tariff on this floor
~keduce the duties TO increase the revenue!"
Ian any thing be more absurd-urged in the
lace oil the fact; proved by every official report
on the finances from the foundation Of the Co.
Nerhment, that tho revenue has always gone
up and gone down as the tariff has gone up
or gone down. Yet we are told, 'reduce
the duties to increase the revenue Are not
duties the source OF revenue; and would il not
De Just as sensible TO say "reduce the revenue
TO increase the revenue?' Duties and reven-
ue are convertible terms. You want 25 mil
lions from the tariff-that sum must be raised
no matter how you impose the duties; and
why not so arrange them os 10 protect and
sustain your own national industry, thus ma
king taxation itself prolificof benefits and
blessings to the people?
On the subject of the revenue he would
venture to predict that If the ystem of mea
sures recommended by the Secretary-tbe re-
duction OF the tariff, the change from spcci6c
to ad vaorem duties, and the warehousing
system were adopted-the revenue next wear
would not DC half the amount il will b. this
year. Mark the prediction. "not half"
who could deny the fact that with the raising
oil the tarili the revenue increased, and with
Its diminution the revenue fell off, till at last
under 20 per cent which the Secretary con-
sidered the beau ideal--the very perfection
oil revenue systematic nett revenue sank
down to less than l3 millions? There was
his theory--and there, alongside of it, stool
- mi. NIL
theory. Did il prove that reducing duties TO
20 per cent raised the revenue to It's highest
pointY Just the reverse. 1t reduced il to he .
very lowest point OF depression. While his
theoTy SAID that twenty per cent. would give /
The highest" his proof showed that it gave
he lowest"
And was not this pretty time to select
or the reduction OF duties2 Now, when we
had just entered into war, whose duration
no man could predict or calculate? When
we went To warin 1912, we doubled the du- /
ties, now II isproposed To cut them down one J
halt. What consummaie proof of political
wisdomand financial ability was here exhibit
ted!
There was another thing Of which the tariff
was an index. and thatwa5 the public pros
Peruy. When the people were poor they
could not afford to consume luxuries; imports
when duties were high and dom site competi.
tion was excited, agriculture having abundant
markets, aud labor iul and profitable en-
ployment, they lived in comfort; they could
afford TO pay Tor fine goods an luxuries-and
up went the revenue. Reduce the tariff,
break up American industry, and you clothed
the people In rags. and your treasury became
bankrupt. The national revenue and the ma
iional prosperity went up and down together
and were always coineident with national
protection.
MIR, SIS system was this: Select the articles
you can manufacture to the full extent of our
own wants, then, in the language of Thomas
Jefferson, "impose on them dtTies tighter AZ
first, and then heavier and heavier as the
chlnnels supply Were opened" This was
Iehersons plan; The reverse of modern demo-
cratic Tree trade" Next Mr.. S. went for le
Vylng me highest rates OF duty on the luxuries
oil the rich, and not on the necessaries o1 the
poor. Encourage American mnno(actures
ana while on theone hand the poor man (ound
plenty OF employment, on the other he 90,
MS goods cheap. lie could clothe himself
oecehty Tor o mere trihe. He wanted no To-
reign commodities but his tea aud his coffee
anu they were free aud should remain free.
i The poor man could now buy cloth for full
suit from head to foot for less than one dollar
OF substantial American manufacture. He
had himself worn in this ball garment OF
TINS same goods at 10 cents per yard, and il
was so much admired that more than doz
en- members had applied for similar garments
and they had been supplied to Senator's and
others; yet we are told the tariff taxes and on.
presses the poor. Put high revenue duties on
wines, on brandies, OF silks, on laces. on
Jewelry, on all that the rich alone consumed
and which the poor man did not want. Take
OIL the duties from the poor mans neoessa-
RES, aud give him high wages for his work
nat was the way to diffuse happiness and
I prosperity among the great body OF the neonle
That was good sound democratic policy. Hs
was orliiting up the poor. He was for"ley
eling upwards" for increasing the domestic
comfort OF our own labonDg population-the
true democracy Of the country The rich could
pay and ought 10 be made to pay. and they
should pay; the poor mau could not. ami
i No u. ..