Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1879-09-09
THE TAXES AND THE POOR MAN.


that the poor man almost escapes taxation
unless he uses tobacco or spirituous or
fermented liquors, which he said were lux
uries and those who used them ought to
paw for. The tariff he declared taxed lux
uries chiefly which the poor man did not
use. What are the facts! The tax on
thirteen articles, including woolens, sugar,
molasses, salt, iron, &C.-articles OF com
mon use which the poor man with large
family often uses more Of than the million
aire-these thirteen articles pay SO millions
of revenue a year, while those which are
called luxuries, used almost entirely by the
rich. paw but % millions. In other words,
the fact Is that the poor men Of the coun-
try nav almost three-quarters OF the taxes
imposed by the republican protective tarlh.
An instance OF class-legislation fayorlnS
the rich aud burdening the lsboring man
which we are very glad the stalwart Seha-
tor called attention to, albeit 1t was only
with intent TO deceive. The facts are against
him, and intelligent voters will not be de-
ceyed by his claptrap.-ArgHS.
We do not propose To discuss the tarln
question; but we do propose to look at
this statement of the Arglts and show how
disingenuous it is The Irgts seeks to
convey the impression that the poor man
bears by far the greater burden of taxa
ton: for il combatS Senator Blaine's ar
gnment that the rich man bears the heavi-
or burden. Let us see about that. The
tax on spirituous and malt liquors comes
from two sources, customs and internal
revenue. For the year 1868 the total tax
amounted in round numbers 10 S6j,OOO,-
600. The tax on tobacco from the same
sources amounted to $4,000, 900; total
of gill ,OO0, 900 on these two articles OF
luxury alone. The Argus has carefully
gone to work and suppressed. the internal
revenue taxes in these articles, giving on
~ the import duties.
When il comes to duties what do we
find? We find silk goods paying $4,000
OOO Is not silk an article Of luxury? We
lind Kid gloves paying sl,5S9,9S4. Does
that Cypress the poor man? We find sar-
dimes paying s2S7,O 600; marble $4,000;
calfskins. s459, 900; "opium prepared for
smoking" s32s, 600; papier mache manu-
features siGg,OO0 wines, $4,000; fire
arms, $4,000; hats and bonnets, S29j,-
900; platc-glaSS, S37S 900; Bohemian and
other glass ware, $4,000 ribbons, $3.50
600: cmbroideries, $4,000; feathers and
artificial flowers, S229 600; fans, sl26, 900;
dolls. S9O7 900: fre-crackers, s207 900;
fruits and nuts, $4,000; furs, $4,000;
porcelain. chna-warc, &c, sl,669 900;
laceS, braids &C, $3.50, 600. Do these inn
port duties affect the poor man, or are the
articles on which they are levied, articles
by the rich and extrayagant?
In regard To the other articles, how j. IL!
How long has it been since sugar and mo-
lasScS were ever so low before; How
long since iron was so low: or prOyis-
ions We sent abroad in 1878 enough TO
bringus back sl23, OOO, 900; Of coal oil, &c.
0Oo, 600; of cotton and its manufactures,
81 900. OO0; Of live animals, S2,jO0,OOO
of breadstuns $751;, 100000 How much Of
these necessary articles did we import'
or iron and steel we imported s3.OO0,OoO
less than we exported. or the others the
imports are not worth reckoning. rs re-
CARDS woolcus. the Irgus reckon> in the
finest shawls and wor>tcdS, and carpets
and rugs and other fabrics that only the
rich or the cXtrayagant buy. What need
have others 10 20 abroad for food or cloth
iug when both are 80 cheap here: The
fact is the duties on these articles, some
of which, by the way, have always been
included in a revenue tariff. affect the poor
man very little if any The whole amount
OF duties paid in lSGs for wooden clothing
amounted To but $4,000. And of that
sum how much did the poor man pay;
How about the rate of duty? The low
priced woolcnS pay from three to six cents
pound: but wooden goods of luxury like
braid. galloons and such, pay MY cents a
pound. silks and vclyets pay from 30 10
80 per cent. of their value; Kid gloves pay
~ per cent tobacco pays $50 pound;
salad oils one dollar gallon; opium pre-
pared for smoking 81 4 pound; feathers
and flowers 80 per cent. of their value.
While on the other hand window glass pays
two cents pound; opium for medicinal
use, 81 pound; rice - cents pound {;
pepper ) cents a pound, and so on. Is the
discrimination against articles OF necessity
or articles OF luxury? We are not attempt
ing to defend protective tariff; but the
talk about the little burden that tarri puts
on the rich and the monStrouS burden II
puts on the poor, is foolish and untrue.
Now what are the Democratic party GO
ing to dol We have had three Democratic
Houses, and not one has revised this tariff
of which the ArguS complains. All they
have done is TO cut down the tax one-third
on tobacco, an article of luxury, and so re-
duce the revenue many millions without
chcapening tobacco cent 4 plug; all they
wish To do is to remove the tax on whiskey,
another article of luxury. Free whiskey
was called for in the great speech of
Alexander H. Stephens, which the argus
printed as campaign document. Is that
the issue in Maine this year?-Press.
m, IAes