The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-08-22

thing for the privilege which he 10 to enjoy, and
this something. In he form Of duties, goes into
the treasury. furnishing revenue to the govern
meut: and these duties operate 10 protect the
Joint product of labor and capital against q like
foreign product.
This mode of levying duties answers a double
purpose Ii produces revenue TO the govern
ment, aud Of the same time fosters and encour-
ages the occupations of our own people, pro-
notes Industrial development, opens up new
mines. builds new factories. and ~sustains
those already established, which IN turn fur
nish employment TO labor at fair and remain
erative wages. A revenue tariff accomplishes
but q single purpcse-that OF raising revenue;
II has no other mission; while q protective tariff
accomplishes this and more-it brings revenue to
the American treasury and iscriminates In favor
OF the American citizen. A revenue tarln In
vitss the product OF foreign labor and foreign
capital to occupy our markets free and unre-
strained in competition with the product OF
our Own labor and capital. A protective tariff
invites the product of foreign labor and for
sign capital which are necessary to the wants
of our people (which We cannot produce In the
United Statesl to occupy our markets and 60
untaxed TO the people, but insists that every
foreign producr which is produced at home. or
can be successfully, 10 quantities capable OF
supplying the domestic consumption, shall,
whenever necessary to maintain suitable re-
wards TO our labor, bear a duty which shall not
be so high as to prohibit importations. but at
such o rate "a will produce the necessary reve-
rues and at the same time not destroy but en-
courage American production. It saws TO the
world of producers, IF You want TO share with
the citizens of the Unlted States their home
market, you must pay for the privilege of doing
It. Your product shall not enter in free and IN
restrained competition with the product of our
iown people, but shall be Disseminated against
20 such an extent as to fully protect and defend
our own
Hon. Alexander Stephens. q distinguished
citizen OF your own State, and endeared to the
people Of the South. stated on June rs, Ioo2,
ths theory SO well that / beg to quote from
him:
The best why to raise revenue is by duties upon i'm
ports. They bear less heavily on the taxpayers, and, as
legislators. that is what we should look TO-. 10 levy
ing duties on imports Won can at the same time make
foreign producers pay for the use OF your markets,
and in that way, incidentally and properly, give aid
as a general proposition that the consumer pays all
the duty imposed upon commodities brought from
0o~ argue. In most instances, where the duties are
judiciously laid, they are borne partly b. the con-
sumner and partly by the importer
To allow Congress thus 10 raise revenue by duties up
on in IMPORTS was one of the main objects IN establishing
the federal Constitution of 1857. This system of
Internal revenue taxation by excise and stamp duties
was not favored by the fathers OF the Republic In
times of peace. / speak plainly, and say that it was
looked upon then as not only of British origin, but
there was always the odium of British Toryism at
tached to it in the American mind. There was never
any legislation 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 a serious objection to protect
I've duties that the tax, whatever it may be, in
creases 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 con-
sumner. 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 competition at
home the duty il rarely paid by the consumer.
&c 10 paid from the profits of the manufacturer,
Or divided between him and the merchant, or
the importer, and diminishes their profits 10
chat extent Duty or no duty, without homo
competition the consumer would fare worse
than he fares now. There is not in the long
dine Of staple products consumed by the people
. single one which has not been cheapened by
competition at home, made possible by protect
I've duties. There is not an article that enters
into the everyday uses Of the family which is
produced in the United States that has not been
made cheaper and more accessible as the result
If home production and development, which
was to be secured only by the sturdy mainte-
nance OF the protective system. While this Is
true of protective tariffs, exactly the opposite is
srue Of revenue tariffs. They are always paid
by the consumer. A duty put upon q foreign
product the like of which is not produced at home,
and which enters our markets free from home
competition, the cost to the American consumer
is exactly the foreign cost with the duty added,
klos AL8F 0Vt ALo1A W 80 oop
posing. for example, there was a tax upon tea
Or coffee There being no production OF these
articles IN the United States. aud therefore no
competition here, the cost 70 the American pub
lie would DO the cost abroad and the duty added.
We imported last year SIG. 489, 900 pounds of cof-
fee. A duty of 10 cents a pound would have pro-
duced to the government over $50, 600, 600,
which would have been paid by the II. 000. 600
families Of this country. consumers Of this arti-
Gle. Eighty-sevsn million five hundred and
eiehty-four Thousand pounds of tea were import
cd last year. AT 10 cents a pound 5000, 600
and upward would have gone into the treasury.
every dollar Of which would have been paid by
our own people. Take sugar. as another exam
pie. We produced last year in this country
ebous 8 per cent. Of what our people consumed.
The duty collected from imported sugar amount
ed TO $50, 900, 600. The mestic production Was
so inconsiderable as compared with the domestic
consumption ms TO have had little, if any, apprs-
ciable 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 practically the foreign price,
duty added. the domestic production being so
small contrasted with the domestic demand
that it in no wise controlled or Influenced the
price.
which came from abroad, plus the amount OF
the duty collected at the custom-house. 1t
would have been otherwise II the bulk OF our
ption was produced at homo. II you
tdhc any AmoFlCcu pTouuotIou "nicH 10 oiR
enough 70 supply the domestic demand, the ef-
Feet is different Then the foreign production
must undersell the home production in order to
get a foothold In this market, and therefore the
foreign producer is willing to surrender the
whole duty, or a consideraolepart OF IL, consent
ing to less profits for the sake OF extending his
markets, with the hope of ultimately destroying
home competition. The real question. there
fore, is whether in raising money to supply the
government needs We should have thoughtful
concern OF the industrial interests OF the people
we represent. or, discarding every other consid-
GRAFTON, shall al just our duties upon the rev.
enue principle to secure revenue. and revenue
only. The money must be raised, and in rails
ing il the protectionist is mindful Of the inter-
ests OF our own people. The tariff reformer is
coueiderate OF everybody elses interest but our
own. | cannot understand why any patriotic
tsctive tariff. / cannot understand why so long
"a taxation must be resortsd to land that will be
the ease so long as governments exist it should
not be raised upon the foreign article which
completes with the domestic article, and thus
discriminate Ia favor Of our own and against
the foreign, rather than to admit to equality in
our markets uutsxed, and upon equal terms
with our own producers. the products of our
foreign rivals.
The protective system but invokes the highest
Law of nature, that Of self-preservation. There
Is every reason, founded In justice. why the
American prod ueer should in every constitutional
way be favored as against the foreign producer
whose products compete with his. This is our
natural market. We have made il. We have
made IL after a century OF struggle. We have
made it at a cost of capital. aud brain, and mus
Gle. We have preserved it against foreign wars
- 1880 -