St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-11-29

study this subject. Let us examine for a
moment the principles that underlie public
finance. All taxes should be levied in a
manner intended to place the burden upon
those best able to bear it. Every citizen is
indebted to the government under which he
lives for the security OF life and liberty
which he enjoys; but every property-holder
is even more indebted in direct proportion
to the amount of property he holds, for
without the protection afforded by govern
ment of some kind their possessions would
be endangered without any government
they would be lost for the security of prop
erty depends entirely upon the strength OF
the social compact. When we say those
who are best able to bear them, that is the
wealthy should pay the taxes, we do not
mean assessments on real estate, for these
of course should be equal according to
value but we refer to indirect taxes
such as duties and internal revenues so
levied as to oblige the consumer to pay
them. By all means raise national funds
as much as possible by taxing imported az
ticles of luxury. This ebliges the wealthy,
who can and will purchase and use them,
to bear the extra expense.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
never tax the necessities of life if it can be
avoided. This principle should also be ap-
piled to articles of manufacture at home.
When it becomes necessary to raise money
by resorting to internal revenue, let it be
levied on those things that can be most
readily dispensed with by the poor without
causing suffering and hardship. AS to the
taxing of imports for purposes of protection
it is neither better nor worse than subsidlz-
ing, granting patent rights or using any
Ybnra Inv
one is benefited at the expense of another.
All are open to criticism. They are justi-
fed, without doubt, up to the limit estab-
lished by the needs of the nation. that is
for revenue only, but when a
tax is imposed for the protection of
any manufacture then it becomes question
of policy as to whether the manifest hard
ship, the undue proportion which some
must pay for the benefit of others. is recon-
pensed by the good that may result to the
nation. For new country just establish
ing manufactures to aid and assist them in
these ways is, without doubt, good policy
and wise management, but there will al
ways be dispute over the time at which
such protection should be removed.
Naturally the manufacturers who have
been enjoying a monopoly will strive to re-
tain it as long as possible, while the con-
sumers will work equally hard to have the
tax reduced. Care should always be taken
to guard against unnecessary and unjust
demandssfor protection, for of course if
Jones has monopoly Smith wants one too.
We mention these points to show how i'm
portant it is that the people should take an
interest in these things. There is
perhaps no subject on which wider di-
versity of opinion exists than this.
Shall we continue our protective duties?
Some say that without protection our man
ufacturerers would be compelled to sur
render the field to those of Europe. Others
say that the protective duties create mon
opoly in favor of manufacturers and against
farmers that is unjust to the Individual and
harmful to the nation. There is a certain
amount of truth in each view of the case.
One thing is beyond dispute. If we are to
be independent of other nations we must be
provided with the means and skill required
for the manufacture of all things necessary
to the comfort and happiness of our people.
| We must be able to produce the raw mater
| ial. By protection we have already
| ESTABLISHED MANUFACTURES
| in most branches of importance that have
attained degree of excellence enabling
them to bear comparison with any in the
world. As to the effect on wages, om