The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-01-23
The Internal Revenue Laws.


From oil that we can learn there will be
no opposition OF any serious character In
Tennessee to the abolition Of the entire
internal revenue tax. To let the States
have this revenue, instead OF the Federal
Government, Is proposition which hardly
any Tennesseean will combat.
The drain upon the State by this direct
tax Is enormous. IL Is equal to the expense
OF sustaining considerable army. The
Office at Nashville collects daily, according
to the published reports, from $4,000 to
$4,000.
II il said that the amount collected from
Tennessee in one year Is about 1900, OOO
This large sum OF money Is collected from
Tennessee products and sent Immediately
out Of the State. And for what? To be
poured into the overlooking Treasury OF
the Federal Government.
The report Just made shows that the in
ternal revenue for the last six months in
the United States amounted TO something
over siXty-one millions, collected directly
from the people. This is about equal to
the excess over the needs OF the Govern
ment.
The man who comes to the front IN the
South proposing to continue this vicious
tax system, and to tax the products OF la
Dor for the benefit OF the Federal Govern
ment. admitting at the same time that the
Federal Go, eminent does not need It, and
that when collected it becomes q corruption
fund, will soon go to the rear. Withdraw
this surplus from the taX-list, and tariff
complications will no longer disturb the
harmony Of the Democratic party. Take
it of, and there is no surplus. Then
the only protection which the labor
ing people will have will be Incidental pro-
tection-the protection which duties on
imported goods incidentally afford. No
one has vet ventured to say that the labor
ing people OF this country are not entitled
to this much. Even Mr.. Hewitt distinctly
afirms that in the production Of any given
article OF manufacture such protection
should be given as to make good the differ
ence in the amount paid for labor here as
compared with the amount paid for the
same labor in the country with which we
compete.
Taking Mr.. Hewitt's views OF the tariff,
the repeal Of the internal-revenue system
leaves Democrats nothing to differ about.
Those who are called Tariff or Protection
Democrats want no more protection than
Mr.. Hewitt comedies. Then, getting clear
OF the surplus revenue question we are
agreed. Mr.. Hewitt is utterly opposed to
nm dd-rdlOrem tariff, as he says in his let
ter. SO are we. lie distinctly avOws bis
protection views for enough to sustain the
labOring man and protect him against the
cheap labor OF Europe. This is eXtctly
what we desire to do.
OF course In the South, where we are
just commencing to build up our indus
tries on the basis of abundant and cheap
law mnterial, we would not support Mr..
Hewitt in his effort to break us down. But
that is matter affecting the South, and,
therefore, matter of detail to be adj
justed hereafter. so anxious are we to
avoid complications in oar own family
that we shall not discuss these matters Of
detail for the present.
Protection OF the laboring man against
the pauper labor OF Europe is the issue
now presented, and, a. we have shown, the
repeat of the decentralization system. by
removing the question OF a surplus reye-
nue., leaves no room for a quarrel. There
fore we say that every Democrat in the
South, recognizing it, rs we all do, to be n
most vicious system, and especially unfair
and oppressive rs TO us OF the South, can
heartily sustain the movement for its early
and complete abolition.