The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1883-05-02
SENATOR MCDONALD INTERVIEWED.
He Favors Tariff for Revenue, but
Thinks That Impossible With
out Incidental Protection.

Senator Joseph E. Mcdonald was visited
yesterday afternoon, and his views requested
on the tariff question. The Senator seemed
very busy and not Gesirous of interview.
Nevertheless he referred the reporter to
speech which he delivered in Congress Feb
ruary 10, 1881, on Equality OF Taxation"
and laid that in that speech would be found
an embodiment of his opinions on that i'm
portant topic.
In this speech, Senator Mcdonald says:
The power to tax is the power to take from the
citizens portion OF their income property. to
be applied to the expenses of the Government,
and the amount that each citizen should contrib
s nearly possible IN proportion to his abili-
ties add the degree of protection afforded him by
the state. These fundamental principles or max
inns were clearly laid do wn by Adam Smith more
than 100 years ago. and have never been disputed,
although they are often dtsregarded In actual leg
islatiOn. They are fagranty violated In every
tariff law that as as controlling element In ii the
doctrine of protection. No party in this country
has ever contended that tariff should be levied
purely for protection. On the other hand, no
party has claimed that we were In q condition to
adopt the policy of unconditional free trade. but
that the Federal revenue or the major part OF II
ought 70 be collected from customs duties. Those
who favor. however, the doctrine OF protection
fight -~-~''''''
Free trade between Nations, as between indi-
viouals. Ia undeniably the foundation upon
which commerce should rest, and the Govern
consistent with proper administration OF its own
affairs, will In the end bestow the greatest benefit
upon its people.
In our Interstate commerce. and was well under
stood By the men who framed our Federal Con-
A tariff for revenue necessarily affords incl
dental protection, but when II is levied with a
view 70 protect and not to secure revenue then 1t
S2ed PAID bg The to 81 the perSon p4
ducing the article protected; and as there are
always more consumers than producers OF any
many for the benefit Of the faw' The "P moneys
thus paid are not taxes that 60 into the Treasury
for the support OF the Government. but In the
pockets OF the producer or manniaeture1 and
that In some exceptional cases and for a limited
period, IL would be beneficial TO give protect N;
but the evils of general policy of protection have
been so striking ly exemplifed in our past history
that IL there was no question of the power of Con-
gress TO pass protective legislation, as policy 1t
ought to De abandoned.
81 am in favor of tariff for revenue"
said Mr.. Mcdonald to a reporter, but it is
impossible not TO have protection incidental
with thSt. About 80 per cent. of our i'm
ports are articles which come in direct COM
petition with our home manufactures Take
for instance the tariff on silk. 1t is IS per
cent. ad valorem, and TO that extent must
TO have DO protection under the tariff ali the
tariff would have to be on the 10 per
cent. of the imports which do not
come into competition with home
manufactures. The amount required to be
raised by tariff is $2l6 600, 0O0 The imports
amount to $500, 600 900 annually. Thus you
see there must be tariff varying from 30 to
80 per cent ad valorem. There are some
articles which can bear much higher tax
than others. That necessitates a varying
schedule of tariff. The only articles which
do not come into competition with home
products are coffee, tea, spices and such
things as that Now our Republican friends
say that If they take the tariff
off the prices will go down,
and therefore the home manufactures
will suffer. They took the tariff off of cof-
| fee a few years ago and we still pay much
as we did before, because as soon as we took
the import tax of, Brszil and other coun.
| tries interested In the commerce put ex-
port tax on equal to the import tax which
had formerly been imposed in this country.
We now have to help pay the taxes of Bra
zil, whereas we formerly paid the same to
our country. do not know whether il the
import tax were put on again in this coun-
try Brazil would then take off that export
tax, but there is the fact of its having been
put on as soon as America received coffee
free.