Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-02-09
Protective Tariff and Internal ReTe-
me Taxation.

Chattanooga in reply to a manlIest IruIn
recently uttered by US to the effect that
since a protective tariff necessarily cur
tails the revenue of the government from
customs receipts, and since a certain
amount Of revenue must be raised, the
proposition to maintain high protective
tariff and at the same time abolish inter
nal revenue taxation is impracticable
Attempting to refute this statement, this
Chattanooga paper goes into dissert-
tation to show, first, that I'M
der our protective system this country
received from customs duties up to the
Both of June, 1881, $19S, 158. 900, while
free trade England received from the
same source during the same period less
than $S3. 900, 900, and, second, that dur
ing the same year the receipts from in
ternal revenue by the United States were
$135. OOO. 600, and that this total revenue
of 1888, 15S, 900 left the government with
a surplus over all ordinary expenditures,
emitting the reduction Of the bonded
debt Ia very important omission by the
way) of 800, 600, OOO Hence it reasons
that the government could now almost
wholly abolish internal revenue taxation
and yet receive enough revenue from
imports to meet all necessary obligations.
Without taking time or space just now
to combat this position, and admitting,
for the sake of argument alone, that the
premises upon which it is founded are
sound, we will proceed to show that
even were it practicable to carry into
effect such a proposition, it would
be fraught with the most fragrant
injustice to the people of this country.
And we here will simply remark, IN pass
ing, that how much or how little revenue
England receives from her customs duties
is a matter of no possible consequence
to the United States. 1t does not concern
us in the least. AS England is to-day
about the most prosperous country on
the face of the globe, we dare say she is
perfectly satisfied even if her customs
receipts are 30 per cent. below those Of
the United States. That is matter en-
tirely foreign and irrelevant to the sub
ject in which the people Of this country
are so vitality interested.
Now to the main points set forth ia
our Macon contemporaries adopted
article, viz: that under a protective
system the customs receipts of the United
States last year were almost equal to the
revenue required by the government,
and therefore there is no need Of an In
ternal system of revenue taxation. We
repeat that if this proposition were car
ried out it would be fraught with the
most fragrant injustice to the great mass
of the people of the United States.
1t is a fact which cannot be success
fully denied that the main object of
a protective tariff is to prevent foreign
competition with American industries.
This is the only possible excuse for such
a tariff, since if, in spite of protection,
foreign articles could successfully com
pete with similar articles in the United
States, our industries would really not
be protected, and our protective tariff, so
called, would be simply sham. The
great end and object of protective
tariff, therefore, is to shut out foreign
imports, and this, of course, means a
curtailment of revenues from that source.
This then being the object and end Of
protection, it follows that articles af-
fected by the workings Of our pro-
tective tariff can only be imported into
this country when it becomes absolutely
necessary that they should be imported.
In other words, that only when the needs
of the people are such that they are lit
orally forced to have these imported arti-
cles at any price, and no matter at what
cost, can they be brought into the coun-
try. Hence it follows that the receipts
at our custom houses on imported
protected articles simply represent a
sum of money by far the greater part Of
which is torcibly wrung from the peck
cts and labor of the mass of toiling and
struggling consumers, who are COM
PEELED to pay the enormous tax imposed
by protective tariff, so that the market
in such articles may be held up to high
figure for the benefit of protected manu-
| facturers.
We think that this proposition is suf-
ficientlY plain to need no elaboration;
but to show that it is absolutely,true, let
us examine little in detail the sources
from which the sum of $198, 159, GIG OF
was derived from customs duties last
year. OF this total amount $47,
1877 GO was collected on sugar, melado
and molasses; $27, 1856, 624 rs on wool
and its manufactures; $21, 1852, 534 "a on
iron and steel and manufactures thereof;
$19, OBS, 665 81 on manufactures Of silk;
SO, S25, lis 81 on manufactures of cot
ton, and So, 1863, CAB o. on wines and Ii
ouors. Thus of the whole sum received,
S133, O58, 72O 81 was derived from about
half dozen articles, and all, except per-
haps wines and spirits, of prime neces-
sity. Thus it may be seen that, under
protective tariff, the mass of consumers
are forced to pay for articles which
they are compelled to have protection
prices for the benefit of a few favored
individuals; when, under tariff for
revenue only, they could obtain the same
articles at prices suited to their means,
while the revenue of the government
would be greatly enhanced through the
increase in imports. Then internal tax
alton could be really abolished or mate
rally reduced, and the people would be
at once relieved of a double burden of
taxation.
There is still another important point
to be considered in this connection, but
we can only touch upon il briefly. Sup
pose it to be true that the country can,
with protective tariff, get along easily
on a revenue derived from customs
duties alone, and that, therefore, inter-
nal revenue taxation can be abolished
without loss to the government. Would