The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1883-1893, 1888-04-06
NEEDS OF THE NATION.
sen NATOR VANCE SHOWS THAT
THE POOR PAY THE TARIFF TAX.
The Protective Tariff RObs Lazarus to
Enrich Dives. lit is the Dormant Part-
ner of Manufacturing Firms.

The Protective Tariff Robs Lazarus to
Enrich DiveS.--itis is the Dormant Part
ner of Manufacturing Firms.
III.
In the formation of our government one
of the earliest things to receive considera-
| ton was the matter of taxation. In the
| estimation of freemen it wa; also most
| important and deserved and received the
most mature and earnest examination.
| And surely no people on earth were better
| fitted to deal with it than those who es
| tablished our government. 1t was the
| prime cause which had led to separation
and independence For centuries our Eng
| lish ancestors had struggled against their
princes for just principles of taxation, and
| their statesmen had sounded all the depths
and shadows of the subject. heir wis
| dom and experience were the richest
heritage of their children in the American
| wilderness.
Profting by these lessons which the his
| tory of their ancestors afforded, our
| founders established such kinds and meth
| DDS of taxation as were best suited to the
| situation of our cOmmunlteS and the up
| holding of liberty. The States, for the
support of their local governments, having
| the power of direct taxation of wealth,
| licenses, polls and the like, were forbidden
to impose any duties or burdens on either
| foreign or Interstate Commerce. To the
| Federal Government was given the power
to tax foreign commerce as we'll as all the
| other objects of taxation on which the
States were permitted to levy. In short,
the taxing power of the States was limited
that of the Federal Government was un-
limited, in the particular that it was both
foreign and domestic. The only restric-
ton laid upon it was that direct taxes
upon the property of the country must be
imposed in proportion to population. This
has in many ways proved unfortunate. 1t
is manifestly so unequal and unjust as to
deter the lawmakers from resortlng to 1t
when it could possibly be avoided. This
forced the bulk of taxation into methods
less offensive but really more unequal and
unjust still, where it remains entrenched
The debates in the First Congress on
this subject show decided preference for
tariff taxation over the direct kind. In
this the representatives followed the re
commendation of Hamilton. In fact, there
was scarcely a dissenting opinion. The
primary object was REVENUE, and one of
the reasons most frequently given for
adopting this rather than direct taxation
was that i would at the same time Incl
dentally encourage or protect, II you
please, our infant manufactures. Such
We're the origin and intention of our first
tariff laws and such continued to be their
object for more than a quarter of a CEN
tury. Those who claim that Alexander
Hamilton and the members OF the early
Congresses were protectionsts PER Sc, and
enacted tariffs for protection and not for
revenue, assert that which cannot be
proven by their words or deeds.
Admitting, then, that a tariff for reve-
nue. is constitutional, and is sanctioned by
/ frn % | n
show the great Importance of regarding
such laws with jealousy and continlng
them within reasonable and legal bounds.
At the very best tariff operates most un-
equally. 1t is scarcely possible to frame
one that Will bear with equal weight on
every man. Knowing this, legislators are
less Solicitous in striving for equality, and
the temptation to & i've one class or section
an advantage over another is very great.
The difficulty of evenly adjusting the bur
denS and of detecting the inequalities
affords ample shelter for this inlqulty. OF
course, the natural and undisputed basic
element of justice in taxation is found in
the requiring of every man to pay in pro-
portion to his ability. That is to say, that
every citizen of State shall contribute to
the support of the government which pro-
tects him in proportion to the interest
which he has protected. Accordingly, as
all men have an equal interest in the pro-
| lection of their lives, persons and liberties
so in all countries the personal tax is the
same So in all State taxes on property
| the amount levied against each individual
is an ad valorem percentage on his taxable
! possessions. There is no other rule which
| shakes hands with strict justice. No man
| in America would submit without strug-
| gle to any other in the levying Of direct
Il
| erty which contained as much of in uStlce
and inequality as is covered by our exist
ing tariff laws would provoke armed re-
| sstance all over the United States in ten
| days. But the tariff methods are imper-
| ceptible to the ordinary victim. He finds
| prices high perhaps, but attributes it to nat
| ural causes. He does not know that hey are
artificially produced for the benefit of his
neighbor Ifhe did, that neighbor would,
| perhaps, hear "something drap" some fine
| morning. Hence the dangerous nature of
tariff taxation. 1t is said there is no sens
alton more pleasant and soothing than
that Of bleeding, yet there IS nothing that
more certainly ends in death The process
of paying taxes without knowing how OF
when is equally soothing, but its inevita
Bile ending is equally certain. The diff
Guilty Is always great of awakening the
patient to the danger he is incurring.
The chief inequality of tariff arises
from the fact that it is a tax upon CON
SUMPTION Whilst it is true that men dc
not consume alike and equally, the defic
| iency in their consumption is not nearly
so great as the difference in their wealth
If there was a certain and we'll established
ratio between wealth and consumption sc
| that the greater the one just so much
| greater would be the other, then consump
ton would be as fair measure for the
imposition of taxes as any other and as
| convenient. But there is no such invari
able proportion; not only SO, but very fre
quently the position is inverted, and the
man of least wealth pays largely the most
taxes. Duties upon food and clothing
will illustrate this: A common day labor
er will eat and drink as much and veal
as much clothing as millionaire. The
only difference is that the millionaire con
sumes costler food and raiment, an(
therein pays more tax; but the just pro
portion of the amount which each shOulC
pay Is by no means observed. They are
miles and miles apart. To tax each one
in proportion to his ability to pay would
take from the man whose income wa.
$50, 900 per annum hundreds of times al
much as would be required of the labore
| whose income the year round was IS PEI
week Estimating that such man pay
annually tariff duties on what he consumes
at so low figure as $40, it is not in th'