The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1888-09-06

1t the sacrince Oh tne u,R-
nifty and independence OF labor and the de-
struction Of national prosperity, We mnss
regard It with supreme suspicion ana tusn
from Il a. the eulogy OF selfish interest
and the commentator OF Interested greed.
The other theory Of taxation, and the
one which / believe TO DO essenVai 70
American
pRyrIopMExr AND NATIONAL PROSPERITY
IA based upon an exactly opposite prlnci'
nile. II permits all articles OF foreign pro
auction. whether OF the field, the factor;
or the mine, except Injuries only, which
we cannot produce In the United States,to
enter our ports free and unhurdened by
custom house exactions. The duty 10 to %
imposed upon the foreign competing pro
duct; that's, the product which, Y brought
into this country. would contend with the
products Of our own soil, our own labor.
and our own factories, In our own markets.
Under this system, II the foreign producer
would enter our market with competinR
product, he must contribute somethlng
for the privilege which he 10 20 ENJOY and
this something, In the form OF duties, goes
into the treasury, furnishing revenue 70
the government; and these duties operate
to protect the Joint product OF labor ano
capital against u like foreign product.
This mode of leyying duties answers
double purpose It produces revenue to
the government, and at the same Time Ios-
tiers and encourages the occupations OF our
own people, promotes Industrial develop
ment, opens up new mines, D a1rSaav ne ~.
tablished, which, In turn, furnish employ.
ment to labor at fair and remunerative
wages. A revenue tariff accomplishes Dut
sinQie purpose Of raising revenue;
| Il has no other mission; while protective
tariff accomplishes this and more--it
brings revenue to the American treasury
and discriminAtes In favor OF the AMER
can citizen. A revenue tariff invites me
product Of foreign labor and foreign capi-
tai to occupy our markets free and unre.
strained ~ Competition with the product
| OF our own labor and capital. A protective
tariff invites the product Of foreign labor
and foreign capital which are necessary 70
| the wants of our people (Which We cannon
produce in the United States) TO occupy
our markets and 90 untaxed TO the people,
| but insists that every foreYgn product
| which Is produced ut home, or eau DC SUI
cessfully, in quantities capable OF supply
ing the domestic consumption snn.
rewards to our labor, bear a duty which
shall not be so high rs to prohibit lmpor.
tations, but at such q rate as Will produce
| The necessary revenues, and at the same
| time not destroy, but encourage American
production. IL says to the world OF pro-
| ducers. sIf you want to share with the cit
lzens OF the United States their home mar,
ket, you must pay for the privilege OF
doing 1t. Your product shall not enter IA
| free and unrestrained competltlon WIN
the product OF our own people, put snail
/ ~ crj,nin tad against Ia anch An extent
as to
FULLY PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR OWN
Hon. Alexander Stephens, q distinguish
ed citizen Of your own State. and endeared
to the people OF the South, stated on June
| %, 1889, the theory SO well that I beg to
to quote from him:
1.-THE best way to raise revenue is by
duties upon imports. They bear less heav
lily on the taxpayers, and, as Legislators.
that Is what we should look to. In levy
| ing duties on imports you can at the same
time make foreign producers pay for the
use Of your markets, and in that way. In.
cidentally and properly, give aid and pro
lection to American industry. 1t Ia not
true as general proposition that the con.
sumner pays all the duty imposed upon
commodities brought from other coun
tries. This is question that | cannot
now argue In most instances, where the
duties are judiciously laid, they are borne
partly BY the consumer and partly by the
importer. To allow Congress thus to raise
revenue by duties upon imports was one
OF the main objects In establishing the fed
eral constitution Of l767. This system OF
| internal revenue taxation BY excise and
stamp duties was not favored by the ia
theirs OF the republic In times Of peace. !
speak plainly, and say that Il was looked
upon then as not only OF British origin,but
there was always the odium OF British
Toryism attached to II In the American
mind. There was never any LEGISLATION
more abhorent to the people OF this couu-
try, even In their colonial condition, than
what was known rs the infamous stamp
act.n
il is alleged as a serious objection 10
protective duties that the tax, whatever II
may be- increases the cost OF the foreign
as well AS the domestic product TO the ex.
tent OF such tax or duty. and that It is
wholly paid by the consumer. This objec-
tion would be worthy OF serious considera-
ton II 1t were true, but, as has been de-
monstrated over and over again, II is
without foundation In fact Wherever
| the foreign product has successful compe-
tition at home the duty Is rarely paid by
the consumer. II h paid from the profits
OF the manufacturer, or divided between
him and the merchant or the importer.
and diminishes their profits to that extent.
Duty or NO duty; without home competi-
ton the consumer would fare worse than
he fares now. There 10 not In the long line
OF staple products consumed BY the people
| q single one which has not been cheapened
by composition at home, made possible by
protective duties. There IL not an article
that enters into the every day uses Of the
family which Ii produced In tie United
States that has not been made cheaper and
more accessible ~ the result OF home pro-
duction and development, which was 10
be secured only by the sturdy maintenance
OF the protective system. While this IL
true Of protective tariffs, exactly
THE OPPOSITE Is TRUE OF REVENUE TAR.
IfYs
They are ALWAYS paid by the consumer