The Portland daily press., 1888-08-22


are not, Mr.. President, ,insensible to the good
opinion Of mankind and of the English
speaking race, but when it is to be had only
at the expense of our industrial independence
at the sacrifice Of the dignity and indepen-
dence Of labor and the destruction of nation
al prosperity, we must regard 1t with su-
preme suspicion and turn from it as the eu-
logy of selfish interest and the commentator
of interested greed.
The other theory of taxation, and the one
which | believe to be essential to American
development and national prosperity, is
based upon an exactly opposite principle.
1t permits all articles of fsreign production.
whether Of the field, the factory, or the mine,
except luxuries, which we cannot produce in
the United States, to enter 0ur ports free
and unburdened by custom house eXactions
The duty is to be imposed upon the foreign
which, If brought into this country, would
contend with the markets. Under this sys-
TEN if the foreign producer would enter our
market with competing product he must
contribute something for the privilege which
he is to enjoy, and this something, in the
form Of duties, goes into the Treasury, fur
nishing revenue to the government; and
these duties operate to protect the joint pro-
duct of labor and capital against like
foreign product.
This mode Of levying duties answer a
double purpose. 1t produces revenue to the
government, and at the same time fosters
and encourages the occupations of our own
people, promotes industrial development,
opens up new mines. builds new factories,
and sustains those already established, which
in turn furnish employment to labor at fair
and remunerative wages. A revenue tar iff
accomplishes but single purpose-that Of
raising revenue; 1t has no other mission :;
while a protective tariff accomplishes this
and more--it brings revenue to the Ameri-
can Treasury and discriminates in favor of
the American citizen. A revenue tariff invites
the product of foreign labor and foreign capt.
tai to occupy our markets free and unre-
strained in competition with the products of
our own labor and capital. A protective tar
iff invites the product of foreign labor and
foreign capital which are necessary TO the
wants of our people (which we cannot pro-
duce in the United States) to occupy our
markets and go untaxed to the people, but
insists that every foreign product which is
produced at home, or can be successfully, in
quantities capable Of supplying the domestic
consumption, shall, whenever necessary TO
maintain suitable rewards to our labor, bear
duty which shall not be so high as to pro-
hibit importations, but at such rate as will
produce the necessary revenues and at the
same time not destroy but encourage Ameri-
can production. 1t says to the world of pro-
ducers, IF you want to share with the citi-
Zens of the United States their home market,
you must pay for the privilege of doing it.
Your product shall not enter in free and un-
restrained competition with the product Of
our own people, but shall be Disseminated
against to such an extent as to fully protect
and defend our own"
Hon. Alexander Stephens, distinguished
citizen of your own State, and endeared to
the people Of the South, stated on June %,
1882, the theory so well that l beg to quote
from him:
The best way to raise revenue is by duties upon
imports. They bear less heavily on the tax-pay-
ers and, as legislators that Is what we should look
TO- II esyag aes drsg0 on pOs yoS can b at 1se
of your markets, and In that way incidentally and
properly, give aid and protection to American in
the consumer pays all the duty imposed upon com
modlties brought from other countries. This is a
question that ca cannot l now argue. In most in
are borne partly by the consumer and partly by
the importer.
ties upon imports was one Of the main objects in
establishing the Federal Constitution Of 1887.
This system of internal revenue taxation by ex-
else and stamp duties was not favored by the
fathers OF the Republic in times Of peace. speak
plainly, and say that 1t was looked upon then as
not only of British origin, but there was always
American mind. There was never any legisla-
ton more abhorrent to the people Of this country,
even in their colonial condition, than what was
known as the infamous stamp act"
1t is alleged as serious objection to pro-
tective duties that the tax, whatever it may
be, increases the cost Of the foreign as well
as the domestic product to the extent of such
tax or duty, and that it Is wholly paid By the
consumer. This objection would be worthy
of serious consideration II It were true, but
as has been demonstrated over and over
again, it is without foundation in fact.
Wherever the foreign product has successful
competitor at home the duty is rarely paid by
the consumer. 1t is paid from the profits Of
the manufacturer, or divided between him
and the merchant, or the importer,
and diminishes their profits to that extent.
Duty or no duty, without home competition
the consumer would fare worse than he fares
now. There is not in the long line of staple
products consumed by the people single
petition at home made possible by protective
duties. There is not an article that enters
into the every day uses OF the family which
is produced in the United States that has not
been made cheaper and more accessible as
the result of home production and develop
sturdy maintenance of the protective sys-
tenn. While this Is true Of protective tariffs,
tine opposite is true of revenue tar
ifs. They are always paid by the consumer.
A duty put upon foreign product, the like
of which is not produced at home, and which
enters our markets free from home competi-
tion, the cost to the American consumer is
exactly the foreign cost with the duty added,
whatever that may be, much or little. Sup
posing, for example, there was tax upon
of these articles in the United States, and
no competition here. the
cost to the American public would be the cost
abroad and the duty added. We imported
last year 526, $4,000 pounds OF coffee. A
duty of ten cents pound would have pro-
duced 70 the government over S52,000,000.
which would have been paid by the I2,000,-
600 families of this country, consumers Oh
this article. Eighty seven million five hun
dred and eighty-four thousand pounds OF tea
were imported last year. AT ten cents
pound SS,000,000 and upwards would have
gone into the treasury, every dollar of which
would have been paid by our own people.
Take sugar. as another example. We pro-
duced last year in this country about eight
per cent. of what our people consumed. The
duty collected from imported sugar amount
ed to S5S, ,OO0, 900. The domestic production
was so nconsiderable as compared with the
domestic consumption as to have had little,
If any, appreciable effect upon the price to
the consumer, and therefore this sum was
almost wholly paid by our own citizens, and
the cost of sugar, to the American consumer,
because of the inadequate home supply, Is
the foreign price, duty added, the
domestic production being so small contrast
ed with the domestic demand that 1t in no
wise controlled or influenced the price.
TIE price to us is fixed by the 92 per cent.
which comes from abroad, plus the amount
Of the duty collected at the custom house. 1t
would have been otherwise IL the bulk of
our consumption was produced at home. III
YOU take any American production which
Is large enough to supply the domestic de-
mand, the effect is different. Then the for
eign production must undersell the home
production in order to get foot-hold In this
market, and therefore the foreign producer
Is willing to surrender the whole duty, or a
part of l., consenting to less
profits for the sake Of extending his markets
with the hope of ultimately destroying hoT
The real question, therefGe5, |
Is whether in raising money to supH |
the government needs we should .a.o
thoughtful concern Of the Industrial inaS,sso
every other consideration, shall adjust our
duties upon the revenue principle 20 secure
revenue and revenue only. yne money
must be raised, and in raising it the protec- !
zionist is mindful of the intereSs OF our own I
people. The tariff reformer is isconsiderate oH 9
else's interest but our own.
cannot understand why any patriotic citlze' q
should prefer revenue taniI 70 or3sectN t
Tariff. cannot understand why SO long I
taxation must be resorted to (and that W
be the case so long as governments exists
should not be raised upon the foreign arte I
which completes with the domestic artlc, | d
and thus discriminate in favor OF our ~
and against the foreign, rather tnan TO aait d
TO equality in our markets untaxed, ana ,on
equal terms with our own producers, th'iV-
ducts of our foreign rivals A..
The protective system but INVOKE the Il
highest law of nature, that Of selfyreerva-
lion. There is every reason, founGd JUS v
tiee. WHY the American producer shohd In Il
every constitutional way be 4aVoed as
against the foreign producer whse poducts {
Compete with his. This Is our asaral mar /
ket. We have made Il. we ~. sNo 70 made IL 8
!. h.ol /" % f nn,SJ;tai and brstn and music We