The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-04-14

others, that the nation can never afford to
pay any man for employing his capital or
labor in = manner naturally Improbable and
therefore wasteful, and that government has
no right to tax one man for the benefit Of
another mar. But, conclusive as the argu-
ment against protection is, there are honest
men who still believe in and defend the
system.
No such allowance can be made for those
of that middle class who desire protection
only so far as it serves selfish interest These
men, whether they be monopolists or dema-
gogues-whether their interest be pecuniarv
or political-are deliberately robbing the ma
tion for their private advantage. What is
the difference, in practical effect or moral
obligation, between the plunderer who inn
poses an unjust tax in order that he may
pocket the proceeds, and that other plunderer
who imposes tax equally unjust in order
that certain constituents may pocket profits
and re-elect him as their attorney?
One deserves Just as much censure as the
other-is Just as truly betrayer of the in
terests of his country FOR private advantage.
If this truth bears hardly upon some men,
bers of Congress, Republican or Democratic,
who know the unwisdom and injustice of the
protective system and yet vote for monopoly
taxes whenever demanded by the local in
terests of their constituents, they may con-
sole themselves with the reflection that we
have expressed but family the contempt
which must be felt for them even by those
constituents for whose votes they sell their
princples-their convictions of duty.
If it is right to tax the people for the bene-
fit of any interest it is right to tax for the
benefit of all others as well. Between tho
rough adherence to the protective system and
rigid fidelity to the revenue basis in adjust
ment of the tariff, there is no middle ground
VIII oh
stand. One departure from the infexible law
that taxes shall be so laid as to impose the
least possible burden upon the whole people
will not only excuse but prepare the way for
many others. Each tax for the benefit of a
local or private interest, whenever imposed,
or as long as maintained enlists votes for the
defense of all other taxes of the
same nature, and supplies a pretext
for them in the fact that those who bear
burdens thus imposed ought also to share in
the compensating advantages. An illustration
of this effect was given in the recent attempt
to repeal the duties on coal. Members from
Maryland who are doubtless ready to sweep
away the whole protective system, and who,
we trust would never have voted to impose
that duty, did it not already exist as part of
the protective system, felt that while that
system was maintained with all its burdens
they did not wish their State deprived of its
small share of apparent advantage. But a
beginning must be made somewhere, aud the
same argument may be made against begin
ming anywhere else. If Maryland defend
the duty on coal, Pennsylvania can with
equal force defend its pig-iron mono.
poly, Massachusetts its duties on
woollen goods, and Connecticut its duties or
cottoDs. We believe it wise to seize every
opportunity to repeal any duty which is false
in principle and burdensome to the country
Let few bricks be knocked out of the arch
of the monopolists, and the whole work will
tumble in ruins, opening the way for genera
adjustment of the tariff upon correct prin.
ciples. With every repeal of an unjust duty,
men of the middle class to which we have re-
ferred, no longer restrained by local interests
find themselves free to oppose protection as
whole; their constituents, no longer duped by
an imaginary or insufficient compensation
will demand the overthrow of system oil
which only the burdens remain. The shortest
and surest way to secure thorough reform
is to concentrate the attack upon those spe
cial interests which act as outposts for the
protective citadel. The field will then bt
open for a square contest between those whC
favor and those who oppose protection as
national policy-between those who believ,
that Government has the power and the righ
to foster particular branches of industry b,
imposing upon the whole people burdens in
defensible for any other purpose, and those
who maintain that ne man should be taxe(
for the benefit of anybody else, but that al
taxes should be adjusted solely with inten
to raise the needed revenue at the least pos
sible expense to the whole people. That ques
tion once fairly presented, the issue will b.
neither doubtful nor distant.