The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-01-14

The Tariff and the Internal Revenue.
From the Times
Washington despatch, purporting to explain
the position of the tariff question, remarks that
eff tariff bill fixing high duties becomes law,
q material reduction of internal revenue taxes
will be assented to, the two ends being incom.
patible with the requirements of the Treasury
for revenue. Especially" it is added 'will this
be the case as regards the tax on manufactures
and the income tax" The 'fncompatibillty. -
we submit is all the other way.
The most plausible argument for higher Gus
toms duties grows out OF the enormous burden
of internal taxation. The high price of labor
is supplemented with a taxation that reaches
every article entering INTO manufacturers
reaches them, too, not once alone, but sspa-
rateIy, and often also IN the aggregate. The
income tax adds to the load, always vUxatiously
and harshly, and not seldom uniustly. IRE
spective, then, of the abstract merits of protec-
ton and free trade, the manufacturing class
have haG q strong show of right in their plea
for legislative avor as against the products of
other countries, having cheaper labor and less
Onerous taxation. Tue national necessities
having subjected them to serious Disadvantages
in regard to the cost of production, IL has been
but fair that they should have countervaling
advantages in the shape Of protection, direct or
incidental
The most rational method of relieving the
manufacturers still further, would seem to be
found in the revision and amendment of the
internal revenue system. OF the hfty-dve mil
lions which Mr.. Wells proposes to appropriate
to the reduction of taxation, thirty-dve millions
are assigned 10 the reduction OF taxes preiudl-
Cial to manufacturing industry, the remaining
twenty millions being in the nam devoted to
the removal Cf import duties upon certain raw
materials of manufacture. These changes
would be equivalent to an increase OF protec-
ton, with TINS dIferenCe-that while heavier
customs duties would entail more oppressive
load upon the multitude of consumers, to react
upon the manufacturers in the form of higher
wages for LABOR, this cheapening OF raw mate
rlals and tightening of internal taxation would
afford relief to the manufacturer, and probably
some though not corresponding, benefit to the
consumer In effect, the hfty-dye millions saved
wOulG be saved Tor the profit of manufacturers.
This does not satisfy them, however. 1t the
Washington writer is correctly informed, they
demand noe only relief to the extent of fifty
five millions, as proposed but additional tariff
protection to the tune of we know not how
many millions.
Instead of fifty-fve millions to be thus en-
pOyed, Mr.. Wells data show that margin of
hundred millions might be calculated upor
as the basis of taxation reform. Only let COM
mon sense prevail concerning the principal of
the public debt, and the characterization
margin win be attanabe. Only let the reduc-
ton of the debt be deferred until the country
shall have reganed normal and settled con-
dltlon IN respect of taxation and industry, and
the succor suggested by the Revenue Commis-
sOner might be nearly doubled, By this pro-
away the income tax, or at any date of reducing
1t to insgni6cance. Thus, it is in the power OF
Congress to afford vast amount of relief, in
directly, 10 manufacturers and the community,
without the injury and injustice which are in
Volved in the demand Tor prohibitory duties.
To reduce internal taxation and foster manu-
factures by the free importation ORA materials,
and at the same time to raise the tariff for the
accommodation of the class thus helped, would
be monstrous. If the prohibitionists are masters
OF the situation, far the tariff is concerned
1lr,NI, I,lNl Ill.
public The true policy, however, is to discard
special claims for exaggerated protection, and
so to revise the system of taxation, customs and
internal, that any change resolved upon shall
1nure to the profit of the community. By the
plan suggested the manufacturer would enjoy
his far proportion of benefit, and that is all to
which he is entitled. His case may justify a
certain degree of tariff protection, but nothing
can justify the double system of protection
which appears to be among the immediate
possibilities of the future.