Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-01-19
THE GAZETTE FORT woRrH TEXAS TUESDAY JANUARY 10.


iu,e insist upon tariff reduction in order
% Tighten the burden OF taxation, and
maintain thet II IN not hazardous 70 make
nc reduction because the change viii In
crease the revenue. II the change they
ask for will result in lower revenue, the
treasury will experience a deficiency; II
il will result in increased revenue, the
public burdens will not be lightened.
The reply will probably be made That
what is needed Is a readiustment Of the |
burdens; that the tariff Is needlessly OPP |
in its protective features; that
relief In this direction viii enable the !
people 10 earn more, and more easily TO |
pay their taxes. This brings us around |
to the old question between protection
and free trade, presents the matter In the
second OF the two aspects above referred
20, and affords the only reasonable Gnd
logical ground on which demand for a
revision OF the tariff csn, under existing
circumstances, be based. Here, again, IL
IL idle 10 attempt Gu argument on the
question within the limits Of newspaper
article. As well might an atheist and
Presbyterian hold debate as TO the eff
cacy OF infant baptism. There Is no
common ground for the dlsputants 10
stand upon, no single principle tearing
upon the matter under discussion which
both accept.
REVENUE REroRNfrRs NOT AGyEED.
Bat there is practical side 20 the sub
icct, nevertheless. For It is 70 be re-
marked that with exceptions Sc few that
they can be numbered on the fingers of
the two hands, there c no men OF in
fluence In the country who venture TO 90
to an extreme ia opposition TO the pro.
toctive system. Many men Gre theoreti-
cally radical ireo-traders, bit scarcely one
Of them dares 70 advocate an immediate
abandonment Of protection. They dread
m Industrial CONFUSION or q political re-
action, If their principles should be put
In operation suddenly. tits not necessary
or fair TO insist that their hesitation be-
tokens tlmidity, or u less iirm conviction
than they profess to hold of the sound
ness OF their views. But their hesitation
is fact, and has TN Important bearing
upon the matter in hand
IL is a much more important fact, how
ever, that the men who are less radical,
who call themselves revenue reformers,
hold an almost infinite variety of views on
the subject OF the tariff. The moment one
touches upon details differences spring
up between those who have agreed upon
general principles. The representatives
Of iron Districts want no material reduc-
ton In the duties upon iron and steel;
the sheep farmers wish for higher rather
than lower duties on wool; Louisiana OBJ
jects TO q decrease Of the rates upon
sugar; the whole Northwest would pro-
test against the removal OF the duty on
wheat; New England would dread the
effect OF reduction of the duty on cotton
goods; and salt, lumber, coal and other
articles--all, like the most of those lust
mentioned, coming within the most re-
stricted definition of raw materials
have their special friends and champions
who may believe in free trade, generally,
or at the least In revenue reform, but who
think that she reform should pass by with
out affecting the particular industry in
which they are Interested.
IMPossrBIIITY or CHANGE IN THE
TARIFF.
These facts lead to the belief that al
though the tariff will, in all probability,
be much discussed, the prospect that any
considerable change, or one might even
say any change at ALL in the tariff laws
during the present administration, 10 de-
cidedly small. The Republicans in con-
gress are practically agreed in resisting
change, and In one branch of congress
they are majority. Only by making o
tariff bill a party measure could the
Democrats become united sufficiently to
carry the bill even through the house of
Representatives; and the moment they
made IL the test of party fealty, that
moment the Republicans would be forced
TO take u position in opposition TO the
bill; and they are powerful enough TO de-
feat II.
What, then, 10 the conclusion of the
matter2 That the financial situation of
the country, present and prospective, now
calls for no change in the tax system;
that there Is no party which can be united
In sincere advocacy Of any dennitlve plan
OF tariff amendment; that only az Il party
measure can any tariff Dill be passed
through one branch OF congress; that
making such bill party measure inev-
itably stlrs up the opposing party TO
antagonize It.; and that under these last
described circumstances the passage of
any bill through TO enactment is simply an
impossibility. Is il an evasion of the
issue TO conclude thus? What then is the
issue? Where Ia the finnncior who main
tains TINT change in the tariff is needed
in order TO reduce the revenue? Where
Is the responsible statesman or politician
who rejects wholly the principle Of pro-
lection underlying the present tariff laws?
IL is surely idle TO defend principle that
Is not attacked; and 1t Is waste OF labor
TO build Notifications around law which
Is amply protected by the weakness of its
enemies, II not by its own strength.
-.
Bunilen's ArnIcn salve.