The National tribune., 1882-08-05

the abandonment of that measure, and it is
now certain that no attempt viii be made TO
take itup during the present session. Judge
/ Kelley, who introduced it in the House,
and succeeded, by iudicious management,
IN eftecting It's passage there, Left for Denver
/ last week To deliver the address at the open
ing Of the mining exposition in that city,
/ fully convinced that the Senate would not
/ resume consideration of the subject, and, il
/ not resigned TO its fate. disposed, at least to
! let the responsibility rest where it belongs.
! The readers of THE NATIONAL TRIBUNE,
we need hardly say, can afford TO view the
result with equanimity, if not with positive
/ satisfaction. In It's original form the Kelley
. bin was a comparatively innocent measure,
/ and, although we should have deplored It's
/ passage as decidedly impolitic, the reduction
/ of the revenues which it would have
brought about was so small that its effect
would have been practically imperceptible.
/ What we feared was, that it would open the
door to a general raid upon the revenues,
and that in the end the resources of the
Government would be so seriously impaired
rs to interfere with the discharge of its just
obligations The debate in the Senate
showed that this apprehension was we'll
founded. Neither Republicans nor Demo
Gratis were content with the reduction pro-
vided for by the House bill, and The conse-
quence was that it came from the Finance
Committee loaded down with amendments
of character to invite still further amend
ments in Committee of the Whole, and
which, if adopted, would eventually eXtin-
guish the present annual surplus of receipts
over expenditures and put an eiIectual stop
to the process of dobt-paying as well as
render necessary a general retrenchment
in Government expenditures. It's effect
upon the interests Of our ex-soldiers and
sailors would have been particularly dis
astrous for it would have seriously inter
fered with the payment of pensions under
| existing laws and destroyed utterly their
prospects of securing additional relief at the
hands of Congress. Such malignant persons
as Senator Beck would have jumped at the
opportunity to antagonize pension legisla-
ton with the objection that the Government
was too poor to pay any further claims of
that character, and, supported by the Treas
ury reports their arguments could not have
failed OF effect It was the hidden rather
than the apparent dangers of the bill, as we
have said, that first excited our alarm and
prompted MS to sound the warning to our
/ readers. Now, however, that its defeat has
. brought the question of internal revenue
reduction squarely before the country, we
are disposed to 20 farther and say that the
bill ought not to be passed in any form
whatever, fer the reason that, independent
of all other considerations, it is wrong in
principle and not in accord with the require
ments Of sound financial policy. We are
as sensible rs any one can be Of the import
ance Of making the burdens of taxation rs
| light rs possible and providing for their
equalization, wherever they are inequitabIy
distributed, but we submit, first, that the
indirect taxes levied by the Government
through its internal revenue system are not
oner0us in the usual sense of the term, and,
/ secondly, that il is contrary to the demands
of public policy to abolish them until it has
been clearly demonstrated that the neces-
sity for their imposition no longer exists.
! The bulk of cur revenues, rs everybody
knows, is derived from the tax on whisky
and tobacco Both of these articles are
/ Injuries, and are not, in any way, essential
to the support of life. They cannot be
classed with food, and, indeed, they really
! belong in the catalogue Of poisOns. Fur
| therm0re, while they belong to the list of
/ luxuries they do not contribute to human
/ happiness or comfort, but on the contrary
! tend to increase the sum total of human
misery. It is true that they minister to the
appetite, but it is to an abnormal and
DEGRADED appetite. We do not wish to be
understood as making plea for temperance,
but simply as putting the question in q
practical, common-sense light
In spite Of all the testimony of physicians
as TO the unwhoIesomeness OF tobacco we sup
pose people viii continue to smoke. But it
is certainly true that the indirect tax on This
article, is not tax which the public must
pay whether they choose or not, and it cannot
therefore be characterized as Onerous in the
/ sense that tax laid upon food or clothing
or fuel would be; and the best evidence that
it is not oner0us is found in the fact that it
is paid without protest or complaint. The
manufacturers have indeed sought to have
! il abolished, but the consumers have mani
tested no desire whatever for its removal
We have said nothing concerning the tax
on patent medicines and articles Of that
class, for the reason, simply, that its reduc-
ton or adjustment would not benefit the
consumer at all, as shown by the admissions
oc otr7rere themselves that fhpyy ,uouJd