Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1871-01-05
For the CHRoNICLE.
REVEN RETURN.

A good deal has been written within
the past ear on The subject of reveuu
reform, without defining very clear.
The meaning of the term. Reform is
popular word, and consequently nue.
used by oiiticians, ,as well as preacher
rhe latter usually define their undeI
standing of the term without ambiguity
the former should be equally explicit
1ut are not generally SO, when arguing
The revenue reform question. There AL
A multitude of conflicting ideas embraced
IN The common term of, rerenue-refOrIn
in the first place there are among th0s,
~ ho complain ofthe existing tariff laws
considerable of a party VINO have lois
oeen in favor OF absolute free trade
These want lie tariff laws repealed, Vi
essentially modified, SO as 10 suit theiI
nu-taIilf notions OF reform i'll the reve-
nu, service. This class is largely made
up oi Democrats anu Importers of iOreIg,
goods, of all parties; with some Other
merchants, Oh middle Iuen, as tLey may
ue called, who stand between the pI O.
dueer al, u consumer, anu who imaglns
IL to be to their interest to Increase Oui
comInercIaf relations with foreien N coun-
tries, though it diminish, CORES pony
Ingly, our home productions, except tnat
which Is drawn directly from The soil.
Another class embraces Those who
favor tarifffor revenue only, and claim
Lnat tney are The true revenue reformers.
L Is class differ somewhat among theu-
selves: One portion claiming that duties,
should ue levied on such articles only,a ,as
are not produced to any Great extentln
.nis country, such as Tea, Coffee. Sugar,
SPICES, etc. While another portion noIu
tnat as general proposition the tarIu
should he redu> ed, without regard 10 the
necessities of Ieveuue, and totally taken
OF such articles as are partly produced
IA this country, and the domestic pro
duction enhanced il price, III conse-
uueuce of such tariff. The former OF
.uese theories has The merit OF honesty
IN expression, bu- is unpopular i'll Coo
.rIne. rne latter Is equally objectIona-
Ule in practice, producing about the
same results, but is mere ambiguous anu
deceptive in term s, and less direct Ill
purpose.
Revenue reform implies better sys-
tenn than the one at present in use, fol
ievying nd collecting the revenue. Who
has pointed ont such system? Certain
~ none of the reformers alluded to above
That the present tariff Of duties may be
imperfect in some of its details, is not
70. moment doubted, but time and
experience will invariably point out and
correct such defects.
If there were no necessity for the col
lection of large revenue, then, the
free-traders and protectionists woulu
have clear field for fair fight. But H.
The question stands the advantage Is
greatly with the latter. We have a
certain amount of money to raise, to
meet the actual wants of the Govern
ment. Shall this be raised by direct
taxatiou-by an assessment on our lands
aud houses, our cattle, horses, sheep,
hogs, money, merchandise etc? Or Will
we collect O hundred and fifty, or one
hundred and seventy-five million of it
by Indirect taxation, as at present; or
III other " ords, by duties on foreigL I'M
ports? This is the practical, matter of
fact question, to be dealt with.
A tariff for revenue, distributed so as
to protect American industry, and en-
courage home production is all She pro-
tectionist should expect, and is no less
than the free-trader will have to submit
to, for the country's good.
When we come to put the doctrine OF
free-trade into practice, after it is under
stood to mean an increase of direct tax
tion, to the extent of Sl65, 900 900, per
annum, ii will have but few supporters
among the really productive masses in
this country. 1t is easy to imagine
why the importers, and merchants gen.
orally of our seaboard cities, should be
in favor of free trade, upon tne grounds
of supposed self Interest, as it would en-
able item to get a commission on the
business of the country; but why the
mechanic or agriculturist should fall in |
with such theory, is beyond compre-
hensiOn.
With your permission Mr.. Editor
NAV pursue this subject little furthe |
hereafter, and treat the question from
the standpoint of practical agricultur-
ist.
FARMER.