St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1888-08-30

you can find foreign article which the
people of this country require and which
of necessity they must import, any duty,
however low, indeed the very minimum,
will produce revenue; for mas much as
there is no home produced article to con-
tend for any part of the home market, i'm
portations will go on unchecked, and the
revenue derived therefrom will be only
limited by the extent OF the lmportations
Influenced by the necessities of our people
and their capacity to buy. An illustration
familiar to all of you are the products OF
tea and coffee. Neither of these great
staple articles are produced in the United
States. The demands of our people for
these products, and they extend to every
home and fiTeside in the land, are supplied
from abroad. Now, any tax thereon,
however slight and insignificant, would
produce a very considerable revenue to the
government; and this illustrates what is
commonly understood as revenue
tariff" If, however, the duty is levied
upon the foreign competing product, it is
made so low, having revenue only in view,
tition and increase the revenue therefrom
by increasing importations.
Hon. j. Randolph Tucker, of Virginia,
an eminent lawyer and experienced states
man, in a speech delivered in the House of
representatives May IS, 1878, defined
revenue duty as follows:
Therefore, as no higher duty ought to
be laid than is needed to raise the requis
lite revenue on any particular article, it
follows that the true revenue duty is the
lowest duty which will bring the required
revenue"
This definition is fair and frank one,
and l accept it. A revenue tariff is, there
fore, such one as will produce the
LARGEST REVENUE FROM THE LOWEST
DUTY.
The lowest rate of duty will encourage inn
portations, diminish home production, and
inevitably increase the revenue; it will of
necessity check competition at home and
send our merchants abroad to buy; it
affords no protection, not even Incidental,
for the very instant you discover that such
duty favors the home producer, that in
slant you discover that importations and
revenue are checked, and that our own
producers are able to control the home
market, or part of it. Then at once the
advocate of a revenue tariff reduces the
duty, brings it down to the true revenue
standard for it must not be overlooked,
according to that free trade maxim,
"Where protection begins revenue ends"
and the question of revenue is always con-
trolling. A revenue tariff is inconsistent
with protection 1t is intended for wholly
different purpose. 1t loses its force and
character as genuine revenue tariff when
it becomes to any extent protective. 1t has
but one object. 1t can have but one effect
that of opening up our markets to the
| foreign producer-lmpOverishi the home
producer and enriching his foreign rival.
England is more nearly a free trade
country than any other, and her system of
taxation furnishes an unmistakable ex-
ample of the practice and principle of
revenue tariff. Her import duties are i'm
posed almost exclusively upon articles
which cannot be produced by her own
people upon her own soil. Tobacco, snuff,
cigars, chicory, cocoa, currants, figs,
raisins, rum, brandy, wine, tea and coffee
these are the articles from which her
customs revenue is derived; articles, in
the main, not produced in England, but
which must be supplied from abroad,
while, practically, all competing products
of foreign make and production are adj
mitted through her custom houses free of
duty. A brief statement of the dutiable
imports of Great Britain will not be with
out interest.
1t will be observed that her duties are
more largely imposed upon peculiarly
American products than upon any Others
The duty upon tobacco is, according to
moisture, from "a to 90 cents per pound
| for the raw, or unmanufactured article,
and if manufactured it pays duty of from
S1.04 to $1.16 per pound. The manufac-
tured article is made dutiable at 20 cents
per pound greater than the raw product,
which, with all of England's boosted free
| trade, is intended as protection to those
engaged in the manipulation of tobacco.
| 1t is almost prohibitive to Americans who
| would export manufactured tobacco. The
ad valorem equivalent of the duty on to-
bacce is nearly 1900 per cent. Cigars pay
duty of ST. 80 pound, and from tobacco
and snuff oyer $43, 100000 of duties are
collected annually. The duty on tea is u
cents pound.
HOW WOULD THE AMERICAN ENJOY
paying such duty upon this article "a
every day use? The duty collected from
this source is over SS,000,00O g.. 'ually.
Coffee pays duty of cents a pound, but
if ground, prepared, or in any way manu-
featured, it must pay duty OF cents a
pound-another example of where Eng
land protects those engaged in manufac-
ture. Cocoa pays a duty Of 2 cents a pound
but if it is in any form subjected to manu-
facture it pays 4 cents pound, the duty
on the manufactured article being double
that on the raw material. Beside the arti-
cles 1 have named, there are about 80 or
100 others, chiefly of American production,
patented and other medicines, which are
dutiable at 1886 per gallon. More than
500, 100000 or nearly one-fourth of the
British revenues, are raised from customs
duties.
You will note the character of taxation
to which the revenue reformer invites the
breakfast table and the sick room are
made to bear large part OF the burden
under the British system of taxation. 1t
is not without significance that the nearer
we approach this system the more gener-
GUS the bestowal of British commentator.
Every step we take in that direction, every
enlargement of the free list of competing
foreign products, every reductiC, duty
upon such products is hailed as d ,Indice-
ton of Golden and a beneficence to Brit