New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-03
A TARIFF FOR REVENUE.

The CHICAGO Tribune tries its hand at defining
Free Trade as opposed to Protection. Let us
see how it gets on:
eff (says our Chicago namesakel domestic trade al
though taxed In dozen different ways Is I'D Iact iec'
why may not foreign trade although subject TO dutes
posed for revenue also BIO freef tax TAX ana s
nature is not changed by calling it tariff or excise OF
license impOst, duty, or any other NAME larn
tho technical name given the tax levied upon imported
and provided 1t Is imposed for the purpose OF
raising revenue the Government and not for the pu
nose OF comforting advantage upon one Individual OF
at the expense OF Others its existence does not
provo that trade not Free moro than an interna
tar ON sales implies that domestic trade Is not free
Free trade signifies the right OF the individual to dis
poso OF his earnings and his services in his own way
The essential right Of property Is the right 10 ex
change for other property according 10 the owners
yoltion 1t does not initiate against this ght that the
Government takes fraction OF In the transfer TOT us
own purposes for the support OF are
part OF the common obligations which fall IKE the ram
upon every member OF the community. They are part
of tho expenses OF civilized mankind differing IN no re-
speo 80 far as political economy Is concerned from any
other expenses In estimating their character ~ Is only
necessary ask what would BIO our condition Without
government Taxes OF this kind do not interfere WIN
freedom Of trade but rather enlarge tby removing natu
raj obstacles which tend ompedeit. But taxes imposed
to compel buyer or seller to make trade which ne
would not otherwise make, because he deems it disad
vantagcOus him. Of totally different character;
and whether levied in the form Of tariff or discrim
mating internal duty an infringement OF natura
rights II IL against such taxes and only SUCH that the
friends Of Free Trade protest. and 1t IS not likely that
they will change tho Of the cause they espouse
merely because persons have not yet learned the
definition Of freedom"
Comments by this Tribune.
If tax of twenty-five per cent. on imported
Iron were paralleed by like tax on home
made Iron, why then our Chicago namesake's
logic would answer but such is VIGOROUSLY
not the fact. And it cannot be plausiby denied
that such duty levied on foreign Iron only,
does tend to favor the domestic iron-maker, no
matter though its sole object be revenue.
The question, then. which our Chicago name
sake is called to meet, but does Mt is this: Are
you in favor of supporting the Government by
a tax on imported Iron. while no corresponding
tax is levied on homemade IronP If Yea, on
what principle do you justify such discrimina-
ton 2 Does it not compel buyer to make a
Z" trade which he would not otherwise make"
lust as clearly as though its avowed object
were Protection and, if so, why does, it
not interfere with "the owners vOlitionT and
why is it not AN infringement of natural
"rights,r as you understand them7 Let us
hear!
The Epcning Post lately undertook to assert
that Free Traders favor a tariff for revenue,
when we gave it this nut to crack: Since you
SAY that duty on an imported article in
"creases unjustly the cost to the American
consumer not only of that article but of its
homemade competitor, and rs we are now
importing 100000 tuns of Iron very nearby
"per annum and making (abouD 100000 tuns
sat home, would not rerenue duty of twenty
" i've per cent. on imported Iron compel Gf
your premises be sound) the American con-
"sumer to pay three dollars to American iron
"masters for every dollar it put into the
"Treasury and would not that be ruinOusly
"partial, wasteful mode of raising RevenueT
The Post, not liking that aspect of the case,
took refuge in silence. Will The Chicago 1rib-
uRe try its teeth on that mutt