The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1882-10-28
Why Internal Revenue Taxation is
Not Reduced.

North and South, are getting off a
fearful amount of cant concerning in
ternal revenue reductions. That they
are absolutely insincere in this can
very easily be demonstrated from the
record.
The burden of the whine of these
Democratic leaders is over the fact
that the present Republican Congress
at its first session did not reduce in
ternal revenue taxation. Well, sup
posing it didn't, what of it Does
that indicate that it will not make
such reduction at its second session?
The point to look at is whether it
made any effort in that line-Wheth-
err it made any progress toward it;
and all the while these canting Dem.
ocratic leaders growl at what they
call Republican disregard of the de-
mand of the people TOR reducing tax
ation." They know that President
Arthur in his annual message to Con.
gress, and his Republican Secretary
of the Treasury, both recommended
such reduction that bill to reduce
internal revenue taxation to the
amount OF SIG, 1892, $50 Immediately.
and to tie amount of about S6,00Q,000
to take effect May 1, 18S3-or say
S23, ZOO, 900 in all-came from The Re-
publican committee on ways and
means, and was passed by & Repuh-
lican House at that session by vote
of l27 yeas to so nays despite all the
efforts of the Democrats to defeat it.
An analysis of this vote shows that
of the 127 yeas only % were Demo
Gratis, while 104 Republicans voted
for its passage; while as many as 81
Democrats, only II Republicans, and
5 OF these parties voted against. In
other words this vote shows that the
House Democrats were hostile to this
internal revenue reduction in the
proportion of three to one. while the
Republicans favored it about three to
one
Again, when this bill went to the
Republican Senate a Republican COM
mittee reported it back TO that body
SO amended as to take the total con-
templated internal revenue tax re-
duction about $40, 100000 instead of
S23, 100000. Why did not the Senate
pass this bill 50 amended? Simply be.
cause of the determined opposition
of Democratic Senators, one of whom
Mr.. Beck declared in substance
that he and his Democratic colleagues
would fight it until next winter be.
fore they would let it pass And
they did fight it up to the last days
OF the session. The very last time
a Republican Senator strove to get
the bill up, of the twenty-six Sena
tors who desired immediate action
NB'Ai II IIOC OIIC was
Yet they have the effrontery to com
plain that the Republicans passed
no internal revenue reduction bill at
the last session of Congress when, in
spite of Democratic hostility, they
did pass bill of S23, 100000 in the
House, and would have passed the
bill, amended to e40,000,O 900. through
the Senate but for the most Obsti-
nate Democratic obstruction and pre-
vention.
Upon what special plea can these
Democratic Congressman in either
House attempt to justify their con.
duet? Some of them claim that they
are in favor of abolishing all the in
ternal revenue taxes, and therefore
would not vote for any "half.Way
1t was "whole hog or
none" with them. A pretty plea,
truly! And so because a Democratic
minority in both branches of Congress
is not permitted to have its own ILL
way, therefore it would
prevent responsible Republican
Administration from securing, and a
responsible Republican Congress from
maturing and passing, bill to re-
lieve the people of $40, 600, 900 an
nuually of taxation. That is a kind
of Democratic logic that the people
who want to he relieved to the ex-
tent of S40,0O0,000 a year will find it
hard to understand. Pursuing the
inquiry. the people will ask, "What
has the Democratic party ever done
for us in the way of taking off the
burden of taxation which Democrat
ic rebellion put upon us ?"
What have the Democrats ever
done in the matter of reducing inter-
taxation at any time?
In the winter of 1878-'79 they con-
trolled the House while the Repub-
licans controlled the Senate, and be-
tween the two they passed a bill,
which was signed by a Republican
President, reducing internal revenue
taxation to the tremendous extent
or 100000! That was the act of