Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-01-15
THURsDAY.....JANUARY Is, 1885


VaLh ottaurc NO VVtcu iu lasVf VI shI.
HIsCoCK's motion Of last week to
abolish the internal taxes upon tobacco,
fruit-trandies, &c. We are glad that
our Louisville contemporary has thus
shown his hand. Here is specimen
Of his article:
"The Richmond (va.) Dispatch has
been Of late canvassing the tariff qnes-
ton with special interest and earnest
ness, witt. the Coarier-yourRot and Mr..
Randall as its texts. and perhaps with
the practical motive Of keeping the lead
ing Virginia congressman up to the mark
in respect TO the test vote taken in the
House on Monday last. That excellent
lawyer and gentleman, Randolph Tuck
er, and some Of his colleagues, voted as
the Dispafeh would have advised on the
Hiscock bill; but although the question
Of abolishing internal taxes had b"en
adroitly divided SO as to present only
lis weakest side to th> attack Of the n Oh
tariff congressman, the latter met a
signal defeat. IL the whiskey tax had
been included in the scope Of the His
cock bill the negative vote would have
been probably larger. The Dispatch
has seen numerous demonstrations Of
Democratic sentiment on this issue. and
none have been Of an import different
from the sense Of Mondays vote in the
House. This latest demonstration,
given immediately after interrogating
the country in the November elections,
is fairly indicative Of the latest impulses
and freshest inspirations Of the Demo-
cratic majority, and the Dispatch should
learn from this that, for the present at
least. in any further support which it
may render the small minority Of the
Pennsylvania school, il will be assist
ing faction and fruitless dissension in
stead Of party reform.
"Thc main practical issue between
Mr.. Randall and his party is precisely
the issue which was again brought to
test in Mondays vote. 1t is also the
principal issue in economic policy be-
tween Carlisle, Beck, Morrison, and
other Democratic leaders on the one
hand, and Blaine, Sherman. and Kelley
on the other"
Considering that all Of the Virginia
congressman who voted or the question
at all voted for Mr.. HIsCoCK's motion,
our contemporaries statement is de-
cidedly cool. But that is not all. The
attack upon Mr.. RANDALL for his vote
against internal taxes is an attack upon
the Democrats of Virginia, Pennsylva-
MIA, New Jersey, and other States, in
which the Democratic party in State
Convention assembled declared year be-
fore last for the total abolition Of the
internal-revenue bureau.
Mr.. TUCKER not only voted for Mr..
HIsC0cK's motion, but he combatted
successfully Mr.. WATTERsoN's teach
ings on the tariff question. Here is
what Mr.. WATTERsoN says in an arti-
Gle upon which we lately commented
"The abolition of the taxes on whis-
key and tobacco would reduce the
Treasury receipts by over 400, 900, 900
annually, not only wiping out the sur
plus, but leaving deficiency in the re-
quisite revenues Of the Government.
1T is not to be presumed that Mr..
Randall would propose to supply that
deficiency by direct taxation on realty,
etc. The result would, therefore. be
that the present exoroitant import du-
ties would have to be increased in order
TO meet the expenses of the Govern
ment.''
And here is what Mr.. TUCKER says
on the same point:
Bat gentlemen say il you repeal
the internal-revenue taxes you will have
TO raise the customs duties. In my
judgment nothing is more fallacious.
"Rcpeal the internal-revenue system
and Congress will be compelled to aban-
don the prohibitory rates Of duties, to
adjust them to the revenue standard
and they will then be high enough to
raise all the revenue you need, TO give
full encouragement TO the industries Of
the country. and make the people more
prosperous under state Of things more
natural and less artifcial--when capt.
tai will have fair profits, laborers full
wages, and the interests OF the con-
Stunning classes will be promoted by
leaving them to untaxed production.
and relieving them from the heavy bur
dens now resting upon consumption"
II will thus be seen that il Messrs.
BECK, CARLISLE, MORRISON, and
'other Democratic leaders are in favor of
internal taxes, they are not the same
sort Of Democrats that we have in vir-
einia. And if they agree with Mr..
WATTERsoN that the necessary result
Of the abolition Of all internal taxes
would be higher customs-duties, then
they do not agree in opinion with Mr..
TUCKER.
The Conriv-Journai further says:
There is probably no Democrat in
public life or in the profession Of Jour
Dalism who Is in favor Of abolishine
spmmarily the duties on imports"
Why nots Ifyour doctrine be true,
I'll duties on imports ought to be $ sum-
marily abolished, /" and all the revenues
Of the Government ought to be obtained
BY taxes upon incomes, tobacco, whis-
key, brandy, wiAe, &C.. &c. Nay,
more II, as you teach, It be true that
the consumers not only pay the two
hundred millions of dollars annually
derived by the Government from Gus
toms. but also pay still larger amount
to the manufacturers who are protected
By those duties, surely it would be
much better for the people that all the
'<xeuucs Of The Federal Government |