St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-04-14

=
this tax was unequal. No one pretendS
that it was illegal. To make inequality
a ground for the restoration of the
numerous taxes or assessments OF the
war is position SO alarming and mani
testify untenable as to require no argu-
ment in opposition to it. Whoever UNI
settles the adjustment of those times
will open Pandora's box, out Of which
will come forth innumerable evils to
vex and plague us. Sound public
policy requires that none of these ques-
lions should be reopened; that none OF
those taxes paid should be refunded;
that those things that were settled by
the legislatures of those days should
remain settled.
MERELY A DISGUISE.
But so far as the states are concerned
against whose Inhabitants the direct tax
was not enforced no fair minded man can,
| think. affirm that they have escaped
their fair share of the burden of taxa
ton. or that it would be equitable to en-
force against them payment of the bal
ance of the direct tax which was not by
that name enforced. [ doubt whether
there would be found a man in this
house who would advocate such prop
OSition or claim that it would be just.
The equalization of taxation is not the
ultimate object of the advocates OF this
measure on the other side of the house.
That is merely the preteXt laid hold OF.
But this disguise will not miSlead or
deceive any one long who carefully con-
siderS the facts, or who seeks to dis
cover the influences that are behind the
measure. 1t is one Of a series OF meas
ures or bills to deplete or empty the
treasury without the payment OF one
dollar of our debt, or any reduction of
taxation; and thus to give color to their
argument that it is not necessary or
proper to reduce taxes. 1t is an at
tempt to establish precedent for the
collection of taxes by the general gov
eminent for distribution among the
states.
HAND OF THE MONOPOLISTS.
This is an old nostrum of the tariff
mOnOpOliStS, device to enable them to
increase the burden OF the taxes on the
masses for their own benefit and en-
richment. The money which it is pro-
posed to pay out of the treasury was col
lected largely at our custom houses as a
tariff on the neceSSarieS Of the people.
Every consumer has paid his proportion
of it. If this is to be taken out of the
treasury and given to the states it will
become necessary for the United States
to collect Just so much more out of the
people. 1t may be said that it will to a
like extent lessen state taxes. But this
is fallacy. AS has been truthfully
said by one of our best writers on eco
nOmicS: Federal taxes, with very few
exceptions, are levied Oh commodities,
fall on consumption, and are therefore
necessarily paid by the consumer. The
burden of such taxes must therefore be
disproportionately heavier on the man
who from necessity eXpendS all, or
nearly all, of his wages, salary, or other
income in mere living, than on him VINO
only eXpendS One-half or One-third or
smaller proportion of his income for like
purposes and lays up the surplus for IN
creasing his resources. Every dollar
raised by the government by taxation
for any other purpose than to provide
revenue for the most economical admin
stration constitutes, therefore, a heav-
Ter burden on the recipients of small in
comes and wages than upon any other
class of the community"
THE TAXES LEVIED
in our states are imposed upon the prop
erty and wealth of the state, every one
paying in proportion to his wealth and
ability But tariff taxes fall often more
heavily upon the necessaries of the
poor than upOn the luXurieS of the rich.
The Door mans blanket and his wife's
cloak or shawl pay tariff tax five or
ten times as high as the rich mans dia
monds. The collection of taxes by the
general government to be paid to the
states is a hereSy not c0untenanced by
the constitution, and against the inter
est of all the people but few favored,
protected classes. A golden bait is
seemingly thrown out by this bill to
taI I,o IF
states receive bonus. | hope no mem
Der may swallow his principles and the
bait at the same time. Such legislation
falls with peculiar weight on eur state,
and on all other agricultural states. 1t
is masked attack on any revenue re-
form, put forward because it is so dis
gIiSed as to miSlead those who have
not carefully examined OF considered it.
If it succeeds it will be shortly followed
by other measures having the same ends
in view. am informed that other bills
have been introduced at this session
which, if they pass, will take nearly
S4O0, 200, 900 out of the treasury. If we
permit such legislation we may
at once abandon the idea of tariff or tax
alton reduction. What the people now
demand is acts, not declaration of gen
eral principles. They demand votes
against measures that make reduction
of the tariff impossible rather than gilt
tering generalities speeches about
general principles. They demand, and
manifest duty demands, an economical
administration of the government and
a reduction of taxes.
DEMAND OF THE MONOPOLISTS.
What the monOpolistS of the country
demand is the most lavish and eXtrava-
CANT expenditure for the purpose of
emptying the treasury and increasing
taxation for their benefit. This is the
struggle-the irrepresSiblec onfict-that
is here inaugurated. Let no man de-
ceive himself; this is fight for SIT, 000,-
600. 1t means much more than this.
BY the undisputed facts and figures
above given | believe it is demonstrated
that there is neither legal nor equitable
basis for the proposed distribution; no
reason for it except a desire to dispose
of the surplus in the treasury.
WRONG IN PRINCIPLE.
81 am unchangeably opposed to this
on principle. because there is no war
rant in the constitution for it, and be-
cause it is scheme opposed to the in
tereSts of my state and of the masses of
the people of the United States. But if
the surplus is to be divided, the divis-
ion should be made fairly among the
states in proportion to their population.
By this bill it is proposed to give Min
nesota S10S,524, while it is indisputable
that if division is to be made it would
be. in fairness, entitled to nearly four
times that sum. Let me give a few eX-
amples of its unfairness. New Hamp-
shire, with population of 346,991 is to
get s21S, 406, while Minnesota, with
population of 7S0,773, is to get only
sos, 524. That is, Minnesota, with a
population nearly double, gets about
one-half as much as New Hampshire.
Maine, with a population of GAS, 1896 is to
get 1920, S26. That is, with population
of over 100 900 less than Minnesota. Maine
gets nearly four times as much in the
division. Connecticut, with a popula-
ton of 622, 800 is to get s308,214. That is,
with population over 100000 less than
Minnesota, gets nearly three times as