Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-01-08
ADVERTISING RATES.
HALF INCH or LESS.
TnuRsDAY......JANUARY 8, 1885.
The Tariff and Internal Taxes.

q" hfS SPee'" va '"Vhuey iaSt III
favor Of suspending the rules Of the
House Of Representatives and passing
Mr.. HfscocK's bill to abolish certain
internal taxes, Mr.. CABEIL, Of yir-
ginia, said: 81 do not stand here to
advocate ii rs protcctionist--I am not
that; but advocate it because it will
lessen the burdens upon the people,
and because il will relieve large sec
ton Of our country from an infamous
system which has brought distress and
calamity upon il for years."
Mr.. CABELL's first remark as quoted
above was made in reply to the charge
that Mr.. HIsCocK's object was to get
rid Of internal taxes as means TO an
end, this end being higher tariff upon
certain articles to which he desired TO
extend more protection than they now
get. The charge was unfounded, no
doubt; but it answered the purpose of
its originator.
II is great mistake, however, to
suppose that the highest tariff pro-
duces the largest revenue. If this
were true, the Protectionists and the
anti-Protectionists could stand together
in favor Of the highest of tariffs. If that
were true, the words "a tariff for rev.
cnuc only" would mean exactly the
same thing as the words - the highest
Of tariffs" Mr.. WATTERsoN in de-
msnding that the tariff should be
ga tariff for revenue only" would
mean just what Mr.. KELLEY,
of Pennsylvania. would mean in
demanding "a tariff for protection"
1t is impossible, therefore, that man
really DESTROYS Of securing larger rev.
enue for the Government from customs
duties, and knowing how to accomplish
his object, should expect to do it by
merely raising the tariff, without regard
80 the class of articles to be affected
thereby. An increase Of 10 per cent,
or even 5 per cent, IN the tariff rates
on many an article might result
In excluding il from this country
altogether, and thus result in a
diminution instead Of in an increase
In the amount Of the revenues of the
Federal Government. Mr. HIsCoCK,
thcFefore, might well have replied TO
the charge of those who assumed that
be wanted higher tariff that according
70 their theories a lower tariff would
be the necessary result of the abolition
Of the taxes on tobacco, &c.
The true theory on this subject is
that whilst more revenue would be OBJ
tanned from some articles by raising the
tariff upon them, more revenue would
be obtained from other articles by low
ering the tariff upon them. For this
reason. MIR. MoRRIsoN's horizontal
tariff bill, reducing the duties upon all
articles by 10 per cent. with few ex-
ceptions) was unphilosophical. 1t was
inconsistent with Mr.. MoRRIsoN's own
theories.
We have said over and over again
that the present tariff is perhaps the
worst the country ever had. We are
in favor Of thorough revision of it.
But we desire whatever changes are to
be made in it to be based upon true
principles.
Abolish all internal taxcY and COM
pei the Government to raise all its rev.
enues from customs duties, and Con-
gress win be forced to frame tariff
that would suit large majority of the
people Of this country. Such tariff
would have TO be in truth discrimi-
mating tariff. If Mr.. MORRISON really
desires tariff for revenue only, he
ought to favor the abolition Of the in
ternal-reyenue bureau. If Mr.. KELLEY
really desires model tariff fer protec-
tioa, he ought to favor the abolition Of
the internalfeyepue bureau.