The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1884-04-24

NNNN"hNH|
anly abls 10 pay lhsif 278lOj employees
'lnoludlnH clerks, supsrnisndsnis and
81 the rats Of 81 i0p pr dag.
weiurihsr oppose u BsoAnss II the "a
pensiVsnsss Of The system, ooslins the PEG
pie about $50 roo CO 1, o illsoi 800 CO.,
90 OF which only the iijl COO OD goes into
the treasury. From the Statistics II h
learned thai there 10 Gus ON house on duty
spmeEhert 10 Nsv jersey which yielded but
cents OF revenue In year, while the en-
psnses 10 run the eoneern was about $1,000.
Another, In Maine, e1st So COZ per annum,
and yielded $40; another cost nearly 5000
an yi lird 500. oAe, at Dunkirk, in the
state OF New York, cost the government
s2l02. aud brought in Just $50 20, The
one NJ Beaufort. n. o., cost The
government lat year ss,l0i. and
yielded the enormous revenue OF
1881; aud Il required the herculean efforts
of seven muscular oille.sls % collso. 10.
The expenses OF the custom house at Sac,
Maine. were SsO7, ant tbs revenue was
sl0lO. At saluria, Texas, In raeded the
combined Efforts u eleven men 20 collect a
little lsss than 81 a.Oc0, and their salaries
were considerably IN excess OF the revenue.
The expense Of the Teehe, Louisiana, die
tiict amounted 10 sen, ana the revenue
collected was ss35.s6. The revenue re.
ceyed at 81. Augustine. Florida, amounted
10 $59.75, and Il took six 81 alwart Office.
holders 20 collec. 't, az a cost OF sl,705; and
so on 10 the end Of the statistical report.
We oppose II further because II Keeps lO0.-
OcO paid cohorts In the political field 10 in.
fluenci elections through the most COR
rupting VI modes. We further oppose IL.
because by Its Chinese wall policy IL dss
troys our commerce, as evidenced when we
show that OF the merchandise brought in a,
sesboard, lake and river ports during the
past year, an amount OF the value OF $780,
6Sl .li6, was imported Ia American vessels,
and $i9l,si0.sJ) Ia fjrRign. OF the
oxpor,s of merchandise, an amount OF
the value OF G955,92i was shipped in
American, and S777 ,l62. ia in foreign yes.
sells. OF the combined Imports and ex-
ports Of merchandise, ~ per cent. only OF
the totel value was conveyed In American
vessels. While tue importation of Mexico.
Central and Southern America were about
1854 600 co, of which these neighboring
United States furnished less than $50 COO.
0co. Aud we further oppose 1t for hosts Of
other good reasons.
9
Having thus shown anna oil the reasons
for an opposit on to the protective tariff
proper, We will as frankly state our obiec-
lions TO this tarif'for -ieyenue.only policy.
We are not hostile TO 1t, or
to the principle If some democrats prefer
tina. term, but we object TO its being pre-
cipita.ed upon the country at the present |
because, first, it would do an ire |
parable injustice to immense industries
invited and built up by past legislation,
and possibly produce a general panic; and
because, second, We are convinced that the
party cannot win it they insist
upon it ut Chicago. We pay no heed to
The howllngs OF those extremists who would
read out of the democratic party those who
Iavor for the time being tariff for revenue
with an Incidental protection. MADISON,
JEFFERSON and JACKSON are on record
On the constitutonality, the genu.
inc democracy, and the frequent expe.
disncy of the subject, while the history
of the country under democratic rule for
sixty years, demonstrates that it f0urished
IS il had never surpassed before nor equalled
,ince.
Again, we are free to say that ii the
democracy could have been united on the
MORRISON bill, we should have
ejoiced, not that the bill suited US at all,
With its horizontal compromiso reduction,
tut because 1t would have Indicated perfect
harmony for the Chicago convention. Rnt
he status now Is most probable defeat Of
he measure, If not in the house, certainly
II the Senate compelling the party to go
nto the presidential campaign handicapped
With something that even Mr.. MORRISON
himself says he 10 not satisfied with. We
re most emphaticaliy in favor
# tariff reform, but even this redu ct'0n OF
o per cent. ad valorem on all dutiable
rticles, without Determinations, is not the
b trough and true reform wanted. What
p need is rev revenue system on a fair,
quitabIe basis for all articles, providing
gainat mouopolies and unjust advantages
- u & of any sort.
So much for what we ore opposed 10.
low, let us ses If a taxation system, demo-
ratio ia principle, cannot be devised to
ui5 the exigenciss of the time. The annual
x penses of the national government
re, emitting the sinking fund sum,
ow largely oyerpaid, estimated at.
sy S239. 100000. Now, we find that
roma the internal revenue tax, which,
ax by-.he.way, we objsct to on pru.
iple, but which we conceive to be expedi-
mt of retention for the time being, there is
n income from three articles alone, viz
quors, beer ana tsbacco, OF $135 900 900,
,aving deficiency in round numbers of
1854 900 GOO. How is this to be made up ?
Without going into details, we would OBJ
erve that the customs duties on certain
rticles OF luxury alone amount to over tina
CURE. From silks we have some $40, 000,.
DO revenue: from embroideries, fancy
oods, etc., we have S6,000.00O more; from
.uits and nuts, $4,000. 900; while from mis-
ellaneous receipts (permanent) We have
ome S19,OOO,0O0 Here, already is nearly
ne half the sum required, and on proper
rticles. Surely the great democratic party
ught'in its wisdom to be able to solve the
roblem how bes. and most justly these re.
,aining $50, 0c0, 600 can be raised in the real !
interest of the several sections of the coun-
~ and the various industries involved. 1t
, a problem requiring much thought, care.