The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-23

only able 10 pay their 2,732, sos employees
(lnoludlng clerks, superintendents and
foremep) a, the rate OF 81 10 per day.
We further oppose II because OF the er'
pen,iyeness Of the system, costiag the peo
ple about $50 10000 to collect $500 .0Oo.-
90 OF which only the $50 100000 goes into
the treasury. From the statistics II Ia
learned thatther 10 aoaslom house on duty
somewhere In New Jersey which yielded bu.
cents Of revenue In a year. while tho eI.
penses 10 run the concern was about $1,000.
Another. In Maine, cost 50. 0oo per annum,
and yielded st29; another cost nearly 5000
and yielded 800. One, a. Dunkhk, In the
state OF New York, cost the government
x2l03, and broush, In Just $40 70, The
ono az Beaufort, N. o., coat the
government lat year $2,lei, and
ylslded the enormous revenue OF
Si3,si; and II required tho herculean efforts
Of seven muscular officials TO collec. II.
The expenses OF the custom house at ssoo
Maine. were Ss07, an1 the revenue was
$40 10. At sslufis, Texas, In needed the
combined shorts Of eleven men to collect u
little less than $1,000, aud their salaries
were considerably IN excess OF the revenue.
Toe expense OF the Tsohe, Louisiana, dis
trict amounted 10 S7.04i. ard the revenue
collected wes s235s6 The revenue re-.
celyed at st. Augustine. Florida, amounted
10 1915, and II took six sialwsrt office
holders to collect Il, at cost OF 81 ,705; and
30 on % tho end OF the statistical report.
We oppose It further because 1t keeps 100.
Geo paid cohorts In the political field to In.
nueno, elections through the most cor
ruptlug Of modes. We further oppose H.,
because by Its Chinese wall policy IL deB-
troys our commerce, as evidenced when We
show that OF the merchandise brought In At
seaboard, lake and river ports during the
past year, an amount OF the value OF SlcS,-
6Sl ,l45 wss imported Ia American vessels,
and si9i $4,000 in foreign. OF the
exports Of merchandise, an amount OF
tho value OF sll6, 955 324 was shipped In
American, and s777, 1862. IA In foreign ves
cells. o. the combined imports and eI.
ports Of merchandise, 10 por cent only Of
the total value was conveyed In American
vessels. While tue importation Of Mexico,
Central and Southern America were about
1854 600 Coo OF which these neighboring
United States furnished lesS than $50 COO.
0OO Aud we further oppose II for ho,ts 4
other good reasons.
Having thus shown ssme OF the reasons
for an oppost on to toe protective tnsin
proper, we will rs frankly state our obiec-
tons TO the tsrif.for-i evsnus only policy.
We are nos ho,.ie 20 II, or
to the principle-if home democrats prefer
tina, term, but we object TO it, being pre-
oipitated upon tho country at the present
moment because first, it would do an ire
parable injustice TO immens4 industries
invited and built up by past legislation,
and possibly produce 4 general panic; aud
because, eecond, We are convinced that the
democratic party cannot win IL they insist
upon it at Chicago. We pay no heed to
the howlings OF those extremists who would
read out of the democratic party those who
favor for the time being tariff for revenue
with an Incidental protection. MADISON,
JHrTzRsoN aud JACKSON are on record
on The constitp.ionslity, the genu.
inc democracy, and the frequent expe
diency OF the subject, while the history
OF the country under democratic rule for
sixty ycara, demonstrates that u flourisbed
asst had never surp passed before nor eaualled
since.
Again, Nc are free 20 say that il the
democracy could have been united on the
CARLISLE MORRISON bill, we should nave
rejoiced, not that the bill suited uu ut all,
with its horizontal compromise reduction,
but because 1t would have indicated perfect
harmony for the Chicago convention. But
the statue now Is most probable defeat Of
the measure, II not in the house, certainly
in the senate, compelling the party to 20
into the presidential campaign handicapped
with something that even Mr.. MORRISON
himself says he IL not satisfied with. We
arc most emphatically in favor
OF tariff reform, but even this redu elton OF
20 per cent. ad valorem on all dutiable
articles, without Determinations, is not the
aud true reform wanted. What
we need is new revenue system on fair,
equitable basis for all articles, providing
a sainsL moDopolios and unjust advantages
. . OF any sort.
So much Tor what we are opposed 10.
Now, let us sea il taxation system, demo-
cratic in principle, cannot BIO devised TO
suit the exigencies of the time. Theannual
expenses of the national government
are, emitting the sinking fund sum,
now largely overpaid, estimated at,
say $3.50, 100000. Now, we find that
from the internal revenue tax, which,
tsx by.the-way, We object TO on pr;n.
ciple, but which We cohesive TO be expedl-
ent of retention for tina time being, there IS
an income from three articles alone, viz
liquors, beer and tobacco, OF sl35 .0o0, 900,
leaving a deficiency in round numbers OF
$l54 900 600. How Is this to be made up
without going into details, We would OBJ
serve that the customs duties on certain
articles OF luxury alone amount to over that
figure. From silks we have some $40 600.
900 revenue: from embroideries, ianos
eoods, etc., We have 100000 more; from
fruits and nuts, 5000, 900; while from mis-
receipts (permanent) We have
some $4,000. 900. Here, already Is nearly
one half the sum required, and on proper
articles. Surely the great democratic party
ought.in its wisdom to be sble.to eoive the
problem how best and most justly these re.
naming $50, 0co, 600 csn be raised in the real
interest Of the several sections Of the coun.
try and the various industries involved. 1t
10 problem requiring much thought. care.
fail investigation and an honest disposition.
But We spprehend that In view OF the pre-.
emit state OF the democracy details cannot