Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1888-10-20
THE TWO TARIFF PoLIcIl

~ oHt' vs. w." ~ ~ 1919 ' t<--1 g
pectiye surplus; and the Repub'|fi|'
party proposes to deal with it il. q
same way it did in 1888. Bf
Allison BillJnst reported in tliU SEN
ate, it is proposed to still furtheF
duce the internal revenue by feH&
ing the tax on tobacco, id f.',k
This is u certain way of reducing be
revenue to S25,000,000 aunQH
There being no longer any neeess
for this tax there is no Reason
should be retained. Its total r<IF.
I'm no possible way can afirt rs
system OF tariff protection, for n
ia direct internal tax on hone
ducts and has nothing to do H.{.
foreign importations. To pefSpi|
who use tobacco it Is as muck Il fE
cessity as almost any other afIiA
of consumption. The cigar ID t'H
merchant, the pipe to the studenl
miner, and the chewing tobacco tsE
the farmer is far more neeessaty
his comfort or enjoyment of life tlle,|
coffee or tea or host of 0t'
things, usually ranked as prime
cessaries of life. They are thin
that the rich and the poor alike nll.>
and will have. A good illustrafl9
of how men regard tobacco as 4
cessity is given by Victor Hugo wI,e.
he tells of man captured by {N
police, who surrendered and weiIt
prison without resistance, solely "a
the condition that he would tiNt 81
deprived, while in Jail, of his gu
allowance of tobacco; and it is s'lf
known that in penal institutions, The
greatest punishment that caa be IA.
flicted by the keepers on prisonefs IS
to deprive them OF tobacco. Indeed;
so far is tobacco recognized as = flei
cessity that in many penitentiafies
where everything is cut off from tlie
prisoners but the barest necessa{|as
of life, tobacco is always provided &
the expense of the State as one 81
these.
With loud professions OF wantit
to abolish war taxes,n the Demo
Gratis proceed to abolish old and IS
tablished protective duties GU wool,
lumber, iron, SALT. vegetables, cts'4
which are tax on the foreigner aud
not on us, and carefully retain 4 al
rect internal war tax on tobaeco,
which is paid entirely by our consH.
mer.
If this not so, why Is sugar, a pri1|6
necessary of life. kept at 0S pef
cent. tariff, while salt, Vegetables.
aud wool are made free. Why
is rice kept at 100 per cent? Why
must the iniquitous robber tariff
be kept up at these enormous & &
u-es, this war tax" on sugar aud
riceg If there is one thing more
than any other, used by every body.
and prime necessity to every
man, woman and child, rich or poor.
white or black, in this country, II is
sugar; and rice is n bread stnli.
What becomes then of Cleyeland'a
pretence of solicitude for the poor
consumer, when these by the Mills
bill are left with the enormous :. Wae
taxes" upon them. They are no ID.
considerable articles of revenue
either. The import duties from sugar
and rice alone amount to very nearly
one-third the whole tariff revenues
over S65,000,000. But the simpie
fact that rice aud sugar are produced
to even a slight extent in the South
is the key to the whole policy. The
" Robber tariff or war taxes
must be kept on such prime necessis
ties as rice and sugar; the Consumer
must be made to pay $4,000, 900
annually to furnish protection for the
very trifing amount OF sugar and
rice production in the South. For
here the consumer does pay most Of
the tax, since 81 years of protectioli
has not enabled the South TO raiSe
enough OF those things to Composite.
But wool, iron, lumber, &c, which
protection has enabled to produce In
competing quantities, and which are
produced in 20 States, these are re.
duced free by the Mills bill.
The Senate tariff bill while acconh
pIishing greater reduction Ia reyp
nue. pursues an entirely opposite line
of policy. 1t abolishes the Internal
tobacco war tax, $4,000, 900 ne
internal tax on alcohol used In tbs
arts 81 100000. 1t reduces the duty
on sugar and rice, things we canu9t
produce in competing quantities Is
40 per cent, which still leaves tiI1f.
protected as much as wool,
lumber, etc, if protection ever can
do them any good, and leaves evefy.
thing else that we produce protected
The reduction ON sugar aud rice is
about s30,000,0OO. Here then are
two tariff bills representing two tar,
iff policies. Both reduce the surplus