The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1884-06-19
TERRIFIC TAXATION.
How the Country Would be
Swamped if Free Trade
Prevails.

rs Editor CITIZEN The followin
d, considerations enter into this que
a. ton:
m l. The United States is compelle
y to raise hundreds of. millions amt
p ally to pay interest on the publ
Is debt and other obligations of th
D. government, raising $39S,0OO,OO
it last year. If this is not done the
:. the debts of the government mus
e be repudfated, which is not practl
). cable if desired.
) II. There are four methods O
: raising revenue: First, by duties o.
g imports, that is taxing articles from
o foreign countries; secondly, by eX
7 else duties or internal revenue, tha
$ is by taxing the articles produced
t and manufactured by our own peo
pie and by taxing their bushes:
and occupations by means of Ii
censes and revenue stamps; thirdly
by levying ad voIorem taxes on the
property of the people as the states
do; fourthly, by requiring the re-
spective states to raise and pay in
to the U. S. treasury their respec-
tive proportions of the necessary
revenue, according to the popula-
tion of the several states.
1t is clear that the first method
by duties on imports-is far prefer
able to any other. First, by this
method revenue is much more
cheaply collected; secondly, it is
paid in part by the foreign producer
or manufacturer; thirdly the con-
sumer may or may not pay the tax
as he chooses to buy or not to buy
the article imported; fouthly, it in
terferes less with the business and
affairs of the people and is less bur
densome than any other method of
raising revenue. The objections to
internal revenue are well known.
The wrongs and outrages of this
method of raising revenue are fresh
in the memory of the people. If the
ad VGLorena method of taxation were
adopted by the United States, Ten
nessee's share would be about
81, 100000 annually. Her share of
the amount raised last year would
have been nearly 100000 The
landowners would pay more than
nine-tenths-substantially all---the
taxes to the general government, as
they now do to the state govern
ments and the taxes to the United
States would be several times more
than those now collected by the
81 Inf tho ,F
raising revenue for the general gov
ernment-by levying upon the states
their respective proportions Of the
amount necessary according to pop
ulation-would bankrupt and utter
ly ruin Tennessee and all the south
ern states. Under this rule Tennes-
see wOulk pay annually $11, ,25O,OOO,
or about that sum. When we CON
slider that the people of Tennessee
failed and refused to pay six per
cent of their own debt, in round
numbers $I,500,OO0 and would
barely stand 80 and g." it is not
TO be supposed they would willing
ly pay over eleven millions to the |
U. S. annually. 1t follows that it is
best for all concerned to collect the |
United States revenues by duties
on imports. No politician or states
man will ever dare to propose any
method of collecting United States
revenue otherwise than by customs
duties on imports, or excise duties
on the products and manufactures
of the people commonly called in
ternal revenue; and as between
these two methods, import duties
are incomparably the best. The
greater portion of the revenues of
the U. S. must continue to be
raised by duties on imports, as they
have been in the past.
III. 1t being conceded that che
revenues Of the government must he
raised chiefly if not entirely by du-
ties on imports, the question arises
"On what articles or classes of ar
ticles shall these duties be laid?''
import duties should be
laid npon such articles as we can
produce at home. They should be
aid in such way as to foster and
encourage our infant Industries and
build them up; and to protect ,
American labor against foreign
Dauper labor. AS import duties
must be levied, why should they
not be levied so as to protect and +
encourage American manufacturers ,
and laborers? If laid upon any !
Kind Of articles produced or manu- {
factured in this country, such du- {
ties to that extent protect the i
American manufacturer and labor s
er. To avoid protection it is there 5
'ore necessary to admit everything I
We make free of duty, and tax such
articles as we do not produce nor
This would be the
'everse of sound policy; for all such !
articles as we cannot produce
ought to be admitted free of duty. t
But assuming that such duties are t
20 be laid it is too plain for argu- l
nent that they should be so ad-
usted as to protect and encourage j
producers, manufacturers '
md laborers.
~. Free traders are guilty of a
5IOSS 1dlldCy III JuO uISCuSSlOu OF
his question. In all their speeches /
md writings they start out with |
he assumption that our import du- i
les are laid, not for revenue, but l
or protection only. They always J
present this view of it to the peo- =
,le in their public discussions of
he question. They undertake to
how the farmer how he is trodden T
lown and robbed by the manufac- Q
urer by means of the "high pro- +
ective tariff" On this assumption i
III their arguments are based. s
But nothing could be further from 4
he truth. 1t cannot be supposed S
hat import duties were ever laid
or protection only. On the con-
rary, the primary object of such i
luties is to raise revenue. But as V
iuch duties must necessarily, to a '
certain extent. protect and encOur-