The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-12-13
MONOPOLY SCHEMES.

The Republican bosses manage to
keep up quite fuss ABOUT what shall
be done with the surplus revenue
They are eager to keep the protection
still in tact, and to do this they would
make the outflow of money out the
back door of the treasury as great as
the inflow is at the front door. Mr..
Wharton Baker some time ago started
the proposition in the interest of pro-
lection as it is. to give the states the
surplus revenue as an annual aid to
education. The plan has had its
many advocates among the Republi-
cans, but now comes Mr.. Blaine and
hits it an awful lick in t. e eye.
He presents three fatal objections to
the Baker scheme:
First. The utter uncertainty of the
size of the redundant revenue. 1t
may be 100000 or $100,OOO,00O, and
unless steady no state tax could be
remitted on account of the receipt of
this aid, while sporadic federal contri-
buttons to the states would be wasted,
| as was the last distribution of the
| federal surplus.
Second. The division of this surplus
| would impose on Senator'S and Repre-
sentatives a divided duty. For the
sake of their states they would wish
the surplus to be as large as possible,
which would present constant temp
tation to withhold appropriations
from objects of really national char
acter.
Third. The assumption of a contin-
uing redundancy of national revenue
| is opposed to all sound views OF adj
ministration, because it is sure to
yield to extravaganza, corruption and
all manner of schemes for getting rid
of money.
It is evident that Mr.. Blaine simply
uses this subject to bring himself
prominently before the people. He is
anxious to be president and he must
be heard frequently, if not oftener;
he knows the Baker scheme has not a
ghost of a chance of adoption, and his
plan is certainly no improvement on
it. Mr.. Blaine's plan is nothing more
than another shrewd scheme to make
revision of the tariff impossible.
He wants the whisky tax distri-
buted among the states in proportion
to their population. He wants this
indirect tax, which is not regarded as
oppressive in any sense, used to re-
lieve property owners of the burden
of direct taxation. The amount re-
received from the whisky tax varies
very little from year to year, and
states would know about how much
this tax would give them, and how
much they would have to raise by in
direct taxes. In the first place there
is no warrant for it in the constitu-
ton, and in the second place all the
whisky tax comes from Kentucky, Ill
inois and a few other states, and they
would certainly object to having their
industries taxed to help pay the taxes
of other states. The constitution is
very explicit about the equality and
uniformity of taxation. There is nc
good reason why whisky should GO
free, and consumers in fact do not ask
that it be free. The Republicans urge
that both whisky and tobacco be made
free in order to save the tariff. There
is no more reason why hats, shoes
salt, cotton and wooden goods of all
kinds, and dozen other things which
the farmer uses and which are neceS
saries, should be taxed in order that
whisky may be free, than there is that
farms, homeSteads and shops should
be taxed so as TO relieve whisky OF
. tax. The protectionists may as well
accept the situation now as later
The country will not submit to the
plans of either SIR. Baker or Mr.
Blaine. They are those of the mo
nopolists. Tariff is going to be- cut
down to basis that will sustain the
government, to one that will not en-
rich the few to the distress of the
many.