Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-03-16

: one'must see that the consumption
the rich does not bear the same rel'
ton to the consumption Of the poo
: as the income Of one dos to the wage
| of ths 0tH~-. 4 = wealth sc7unauia. z
this injustice ia The fundamental basl
! OF our system will be felt and force
upon the attention of congress; ther
an income tax, carefully adjusted wit
: q proper discrimination between in
come from property and income frou
personal services, and freed from tn
espionage Of our present law, Wi
become a part OF our system. Ii theS
laws are made, 1t will reduc
in the taxes, 81, 100000, or from $126,
0OO, 900 to $94, 800, 900; but this reduc
ton of taxes will be accompanied b.
reduction in our expenditures Of no
less than g SOC, 900, and if the new
regulation as to the whisky tax should
prove practicable, there will be mucI
greater reduction. This will leave u'
a net loss of revenue OF $92, 600, 900
and a margin of $21 ,00O, 900 for reduc
ton OF the tariff duties. Upon Wha
articles and upon what principle shall
this reduction be made? The house
Of representatives propose to repeal
| the duties on coal and salt, articles
largely produced in this country, and
on teas and cOffees, which are moi
produced in this country. The aggre
gate duties collected on these articles
were: On coal, $685., 1916; salt, $1,175,-
6SS; tea, s., 1922 994; coffee, SIC, 1853, ,09S-
in all S2l ,OO6, ,056, or just the amount
we are able to repeal. Why single
out these articles for special repeal
The whole quantity imported last
year was 49,, > l08 tons; the amount oI
bituminous coal produced in this coun-
try last year is estimated at Is, 600, 900
tons, and of anthracite Is, ,OO0, 900 tons,
or an aggregate of "a, 600, 900; so that
imported coal Is less than one and
one-half per cent that consumed. Ihe
whole benefit of this repeal would
inure to the benefit of Nova Scotia,
and not to any part OF our country.
The cost OF the production of domestic
coal fixes the prices, and the only
effect Of the repeal will be to raise the
price of foreign coal for the benefit OF
the Nova Scotia miners and land own.
ers, or, more especially, for the benefit
OF the American spectators in
Nova Scotia, and will not appreci-
ably inure to the benefit OF our
consumers. To the precise extent that
the repeal Increases the importation of
foreign coal, it will diminish the min
ing OF our own, and finding our vast
market open and free to them, they
will force the production in Nova SEQ
tia, and divide the profits between
their owners and their sailors. Our
industry would be diminished to the
same extent without beneftting cur
consumers. Again, free import of
coal will have the same effect upon
Nova Scotia that the reciprocity treaty
had in Canada; il will give them the
benefit OF our markets without the
burden OF the taxes which are i'm
posed on home producers; and it will
make the annexation of those kim
dred countries impossible. Again, it
is gross injustice not only to our
miners but to our shippers. By a
settled policy of our navigation
laws no foreign vessel can carry our
coal from Philadelphia to Boston, but
they can from Nova Scotia to Boston,
It Is said foreign vessel can carry
cheaper than ours, thus you discrimi-
nate in favor of Nova Scotia by al
lowing their products to be carried In
the cheapest vessels in the world.
while our miners must ship in an
American vessel. You must repeal
your navigation laws before you can
make coal free. The same vessel
that carries coal from Nova Scotia to
Boston cannot carry domestic cOaf
there, and yet Boston at the same
moment insists upon navigation
laws and Of the repeal of the duty on
coal. Again, so far as the duty on
coal is concerned it is only claimed
that it may slightly reduce the cost of
the coal consumed northeast of New
York. 1t cannot affect the prices
any where else, for without q
duty on foreign coal, 1t would not be
used southwest Of New York. Now
New England was benefited in our
navigation laws, our duties protecting
their Industries. Coal is a finished
product of the miner as much as cloth
is of the manufacturer. How can
you convince the miner that he should
not have the benefit OF coal when YOU
demand it on cloth? And so with salt.
Salt is largely produced in this coun-
try; it is chiefly the product of inte-
riOr sections, where manufacturing in
dustry does not exist. The chief
source Of supply is at Syracuse, New |
York, at Saginaw, Michigan, and at |
Pomeroy, Ohio. 1t employs fifteen |
thousand persons and twenty million |
capital; it is an absolute necessity of |
life. This industry must be main
tained, for in war our foreign supply |
would be periled by maratime powers.
The domestic supply is ample and the
product is cheap. 1t Is sold in every
domestic market at less than one cent
Der pound. Our fishermen who must
compete with foreigners, have their
ialt in effect duty free, for they are
paid a drawback of duty on all they
lse. It is a western product; its pro-
luctiOn,. transportation and use repre-
ents labor. Every part of it is labor.
rhe raw brine costs nothing but labor,
purifying it Is labor in the form oisalt,
4 labor is to be protected, why should
abor producing salt be excepted,
There is now q duty on salt of eighteen
,ahts per hund red pounds, or less than
,ne-fifth of one cent per pound. II all
extile and metallic fabrics must be
why not salt? II you look
or revenue, 1t yields over one million
Vith little cost and absolute certainty.
L you look for protection to labor,
What duty gives protection more pro-
Derly than duty on salt? The duty on
alt does add to the cost of the article
N the seacOast, but does not affect the
)rice in the West. But If duties are
o be levied only on articles of the
of the East, how long will
hey stand it? The revision Of the
ariff must be treated as a whole.
Free coal and free salt mean free iron
md free Woolens. Whether we re-
,ard the duty on coal and salt as rev.
'nue duty or protective duty, they
,ught not to be entirely repealed, and
therefore, the house bills ought not to
PASS. As to the duties on tea and
Office, their repeal is simply ques-
ion of revenue. The repeal of either
If these duties in the same degree will
'heapen the daily meals Of nearly
very family. The house of repre-
has shown its desire to
make tea and coffee free by twice
passing bills for that purpose, but it is
manifest that IL 1t is done we must
postpone for the present all other re-
luctions of duty.
/ now come briefly to consider the
Measure proposed by the committee
N finance. Instead of repeating en-.
irely the duties on coal, salt, tea and
Office, we propose large reduction on
hem. We reduce duties on lumber, rice,
cad and other articles. The raw pro-
lucts of industry on which the present
luties are excessive, are largely added
o the free list, and we propose a re.
luction of ten per cent. Of duties on
most textile and metallic fabrics. The
eduetiOn proposed is go, ,5O7, ,353, but