The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-07
Mr.. Wells, ReDart.

mr. wells Report.
from The ~. Y. Tribune.
We have already alluded to Mr.. Wells re-
port on the revenue as one of value for the
facts its presents, and the care with which its
opinions on many points are formed and
stated. Some OF its features deserve further
notice. 1t is doubtless one of the highest
merits OF apublic officer that he has a sufi-
ciently receptive intellect and comprehensive
sympathy to investigate conflicting theories
with due appreciation of the merits OF both
But, while this is the proper condition of mind
for the investigation, something more is essen
tial to executive action or recommendation.
inquiry must result in conviction, or it fails
OF its purpose. The highest type of clearness
OF intellect cannot perpetually balance be-
tween opposite opinions. Still less can it
agree with both, like the Dutch Justice, who
could not help coincidipg fully with which
ever attorney happened to be then speaking.
We welcome the impartiality with which Mr..
Wells has collected his facts. But we are
surprised that they so often culminate
| in conclusions which seem to neutralize
each other. Thus Mr.. Wells in the earlier
pages Of his report takes pains to argue that
legislative enactments have little or no infu-
ence over the prosperity of the country; or, to
use his words, ''that legislative enactments
and conflicting commercial policies, like the
construction OF piers and the deposit of sunken
wrecks, simply defect the current or consti-
tute temporary distractions" This doctrine
which would sever all relation between politi-
cal economy and practical statesmanship, he
illustrates by facts tending to prove that the
low tariffs of AZ did not diminish the prosperity
of our industry. Yet when he comes to speak
of the existing tariffs on pig iron, salt, and lum
be r, he abandons his former theory and assumes
that these legislative acts do not merely 'de-
fleet the current" of our industry, but that they
diminish its volume. Here are two wholly
| opposite theories-one that tariff legislation
does not the other that it does, affect a
nations industry seriousyl for good or ill.
Again, while Mr.. Wells processes full faith
that ''the policy of moderate and judicious
| protection under the tariff is certainly for the
present, the policy best suited to subserve the
industrial interests of the whole country" he
casts unjust dscredit on the principle of pro-
lection by assuming that the high rate of our
| tariffs is due to the excessive application OF
this principle. Now, if the Commissioner had
made two schedules-one of articles which we
| do not produce, and cannot, therefore, protect
such as tea, coffee, foreign fruits, spices, ETC..
and another of articles which we do produce
and can protect, such as iron, leather, glass,
and their wares-he would have shown that, at
the outset, about one-half of all our tariffs are
levied on such imports as, on the principle of
protection only, would be on the free list. This
principle demands that such articles as we do
not produce shall be let in free, as emphati-
cally as that all articles which we do produce
shall, if imported, pay tariff. In fact a
tariff, however high, is only protective to the
extent that it lessons the importation and
stimulates the production of an article which
we have the means to produce, and will pro-
duce under the influence of tariff. AS Mr..
Wells states that tea, coffee, and sugar pay a
third of our entire gold revenue, we cannot be
far astray in saying that at least half our tariff
is levied for revenue only, and in violation OF
the principle of protection. The free traders
desire that as large proportion of our tariffs
shall be levied on articles we do not produce
as on those we do. The high rates of tariff on
tea, coffee, sugar. spices, foreign fruits,
and the like, are chargeable, so far
as they are too high, to them, and
not 10 protectonists. If we examine what
ingredients enter most largely into the increase
of the cost of living, they are not those on
which protectionists would levy tariffs, such
as iron, glass, paper leather, etc. They are
those which the advocates of a tariff for
revenue demand shall be taxed. They are
tea, coffee, and West India goods. The plain
cheap cottons, woollens, and calicoes worn by
the poor are American products. poor
family will not buy foreign iron ware or glass
ware to ittieth part the cost they pay for
sugars, teas, coffee, and spices. We do not
approve, therefore, that obliquity of state
ment which, while claiming TO advocate q
tariff for protection, falsely charges upon the
protective principle the burden of tariffs levied
in mode to accommodate free trade views,
and for revenue only.
Mr.. Wells endeavors to explain why the
United States "fnds itself in the anomalous
position OF great nation, favored in many
respects as no other nation on which the sun
shines, yet unable to exchange its products
on terms of equality with the products o.
any other country" He attributes this evil
in part to Excessive and unequal taxation. u
: Candor requires that in this connection he
should have brought out clearly two essen
tial facts-frst, that our taxation is not ex
cessive relatively to the expenses and debts
, we have to meet; aud, second, that as NJ
other nation has SO heavy burden of annual
interest to pay, this is the first and chic
, reason why our production is made dearel
than that of any other.
; In enumerating grievances we should no
throw the odium OF our entire tariffs on pro
tectionists when fully half OF them are levied il
violation of protectionist principles and IL
l accordance with those of free traders. No
can we depounce them in the aggregate a
excessive" when they do not exceed the in
terest on the debt and the expenses OF tn
r Government. While Mr.. Wells asks TO
lower tariffs on many Of those articles which
we do produce, such as paper, lumber, salt
ETC., he asks for no reduction on any which
we do not produce. Proteotionists would hal
with pleasure all reductions on the latter con
0 sistent with the maintenance of revenue.
, Finally, as Mr.. Wells states that the gall
a, from vigorous administration of the revenu
3 | would amount to the enormous sum OF $40,