The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-05-24
A Tariff for Revenue Only.

We promised Yesterday to reply this
morning 10 the comments In tue Sfdse o.
Thursday afternoon upon certain remark
of ours on the subject of the tarin ana the
Virginia Democrats. After examining the
States paragraph more carefully, however,
we are not sure that any further reply Is
needed than 10 cali the States attention To
the fact that there is vast difference be-
tween "a revenue tariff" and ga tariff
for revenue only" We agree that the
Democrats OF Virginia are all In favor o.
ga revenue tariff" but we also firmly be-
lieye that nine-tenths OF them are opposed
to "a tariff for revenue only" Twice
have the Democrats OF Virginia in State
Convention assembled, resolved that they
favor a tariff, not for revenue only, but "a
tariff for revenue limited to the necessities
OF the Government economically admin
istered, and so adjusted-mind you, not SO
adjusted az 10 produce the most revenue
but so adjusted in its application as TO pre-
vent unequal burthens, encourage pro-
ductive Interests at home" &c., &c. "A
t3IlN tOT ItNtUuC Vf0y NSh h~'Na w
complish these results.
Let us say that in the same issue OF the
Dispatch 10 which occurred the paragraph
TO which our neighbor took exception we
said that the words of the st. Louis plat
form. we demand that all custom-house
taxation shall be for revenue "--were not
calculated to lead TO discussion OF the
IA. iii Notwithstanding that even when
penning the article claiming that the De-
mocrats OF Virginia were opposed TO ga
tariff for revenue only" we drew line OF
distinction between "reyenue tariff"
and "a tariff for revenue only" We OPP
pose the one. We favor the other. We
stand upon the platform Of Virginia, Ohio,
New Jersey, West Virginia, and Pennsyl-
vania,-twice endorsed by the Democrats
OF Virginia. So does the State. What,
then, is there to dispute about in this con-
nection? Nothing, we hope. That is, We
hope that the State agrees with us, not only
in supporting the Lynchburg and Rich
mond Platform, but In being opposed to
ga tariff for revenue only" We know 1t
does, il its definition OF such tariff is the
same as ours. We will explain.
GA revenue tariff" is tariff that is so
laid as to produce whatever amount of
rsYenue may be needed to support the
Government, but laid IL possible in such
manner as not only not TO iniure any bust
ness, or industry, or section, but to benefit
all businesses and industries and sections.
"a tariff for revenue only" is tariff so
laid as to produce the greatest amount OF
revenue without regard to its effects upon
business. or manufactures, or Industries
OF any sort, or sections. A tariff for reve-
pue only would admit manufactured to-
bacco into Virginia. II would be low
enough to let the tobacco in, otherwise
there would be no revenue from tobacco.
At present the tariff is fifty cents per
pound. and the Government derives no
revenue from manufactured tobacco. II
we must look to "reyenue only" we must
change the law, and make the tariff so low
that the article will come in and so pay
tax to the Government. Thus would all
the tobacco factories in Virginia be closed.
So as to peanuts. So as to surnac. So as
to sugar. The tax must be put at the
point which will yield the largest revenue.
Instead OF two cents upon sugar, that
point might be four or five or even
more cents, and instead OF collecting fifty
millions OF dollars year from sugar the
Government might collect hundred mil
lions or more.
GA tariff for revenue only" discrimi-
mates against articles produced largely in
this country for the reason, as stated by its
advocates, that to levy tariff yielding
large revenue upon articles produced in
this country is to add to the price Of the
articles produced in this country and thus
put more money into the pockets OF "mo-
nopoIists," and "loom-lords," and such
like persons, than into the treasury OF the
United States. But that is not all
"A tariff for revenue only" should, for
the reason Just eiven-the reason being
the one given by the advocates Of such a
tarif-be levied as largely as possible upon
coffee, tea, and other articles not produced
in this country. Thus all the money goes
into the Treasury OF the United States. 1t
Is clear case that no American monopo-
list can ever benefit by a tariff upon coffee
and tea. These articles pay no duty now,
but under tariff levied really "for reye-
nue. only" coffee and tea would have to be
taxed at the price which would Weld the
most revenue. No other object corld be
regarded.
But we need not pursue this view Of the
subject. Our neighbor Is familiar with it.
We propose to show what sort OF tariff we
advocate.
In his first annual message, sent to Con-
gress on December 8, 1929, President
JACKSON thus expressed himself:
"The general rule to he applied in graduating
the duties upon articles OF foreign growth or
manufacturer that NJ ich VIII place our own IN
fair competition with Hose OF other countries
and the inducements to Sdyance even step be
You'd this point are controlling IN regard 10 tiOse
articles which arc OF primary necessity in time Of
war;
In his annual message Of December 7,
1880, in the course OF a heightened discus
sion OF the then existing tariff, which had
been objected TO as unconstitutional be-
cause 1t was protective, General JACKSON
stated the principle Of the subject, as fol-
lows
.whsIe the chief ob;ect OF duties should DC rev.
cuue. they should be so adjusted as Ia encour.ga