The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-10-14

people of about 100000, 900 more than
the necessities of the government
required. This enormous and un-
necessary burdenup the industries of the
country has not yet been removed, and
regret TO say that it is not probable il will
be removed at very early day. One
thing is certain, the Democratic party in
Congress will never agree 10 any measure
which proposes TO prevent the accumula-
ton OF surplus in the treasury by in
creaslng the taxes upon the ncccssarics OF
lie, and rs this is one OF the prominent
features OF the bill now undor considCra-
ton in the Senate IL is not difficult to pre-
dict what its fate will be. When We re-
duce the revenue We propose TO reduce
taxation also, and we do not propose 10
remove taxes from luXurics and leave
them on the clothing, building materials,
medicines, tools and trade and other arti-
clcs absolutely necessary To the people,
But do not intend to discuss the tariff
question before this audience, except, per-
haps, in very general way. The neccs-
slty for u reduction of the revenue
in order 10 prevent the accumulation OF
large amounts OF money in the treasury,
and the necessity for u reduction OF taxes
in order TO diminish the burdens upon the
people are both recognized by the Demo.
cratic party, and in the measure winch
passed the House OF Representatives dur.
ing the present session an honest
effort was made to accomplish both OF
these results.
TnE SENATE nrrt.
The Senate committee, however, report
ing substitute for the House bill, attaches
no importance whatever to the question
OF taxation upon the people, except So Tar
MS It reduces u surplus and prevents COM
petition IN our markets. Ii is not, aud
does not profess TO he, u bill for the relief
of the masses of the people who pay taxes.
II Is not, aud does not profess 10 be, bill
To give the people cheaper clothing or
cheaper machinery or tools and implo-
ments for use in their business. IL is
true that the rates of duty ON some COM
molitics arc reduced; but, with the cNccp-
ton Of sugar. which il almost purely
revenue article, the reductions are incon-
siderable, and do not equal the increases On
nearly all the schedules which embrace
the articles Of necessity in common use
among the people, the average rate ui
duty is increased. Metals, wood anl
wo5dcnwarc, tobacco, provisions, wines
and liquors, cotton manufactures, llaN,
hemp aud jutc, wool and manufacturers OF
wool, silk and six goods books, papers,
etc, aud sundrics, eleven schedules out OF
fourteen embraced In the tariff arr all in
creased aud these schedules, except To.
bacco, wines aud liquors and silks, con
tain mainly articles Of absolute necessity
The trainers of the bill claim that 10 makes
a reduction of So, 500 ~, ia the revenue
o.. ~ 4.
trr'st YOU 10 know how this insult is
reached. Nhcucycra duty Is reduced, il
is claimed that the revenue rs reduced,
aud whenever duty IL Increased, It is
also claimed that the revenue i8 reduced.
For instance, IL ia claimed That arnluciIou
Of revenue Ia the amount u -aJbl, ,tlbl
will result from the increase ol duties
made by the bill IN the schedules to
which | have pi,rrUl, AMI that
q reduction at SIi1,SSL2O will To-
suit on account OF reduced duties uu
chemical products cnrihvnWarc aud gla-s-
vurc. Che only reduction claimed IL
30, $50, 1890 ON sugar, aud thir \ said TO
result imm reduced duties. From this
statement II will be- seen that OF the total
amount oi reduction claimed, that *,
So. Sdp, - ~, the sum OF 81, ,lJ, ,Ntp ~
on the single article ui sugar., leaving only
=. lugGi3Sl ON nll other articles, and ui
this, sIjBll10Nul, or nearly tao whole
amount, b. claim n ON account of increases
ui duties. II Is scarcely necessary Tor mc
to say tu ibis Intelligent audience That in
ctvn-rs 81 duties, while they may diminish
the revenue hy prohibiting impuuHIuu-,
cannot possibly reduce the taxes ur charge.
upon tic people. On the contrary they
utypteIri y Increase thH taxes whether
they reduce the revenue CO.. not II they
do not prohibit ur check imppdlt1uy.
,hpn Il clunr the Imported ARTICLES must
pay the inrryn e. ul duty, nni b. iH added tp
iu thc price, aud falls upon tuu domestic
rHnsumcrat last. lion tie other baud thr
increase ul duty does, in fact, prohibit ~
check impIriliinns thc people must either
DO without thu article or purchase 10 l,um
ihr domestic producer of nn enhanced
price aud pay thr tN tU him instead ui thG
government ~ course, ID the Increase ul
duty did not enable The domestic producer
Ia Increase the prices ul his articles Il
would be- Ut no benefit whatever tao him.
WHAT a. NLEpru SOW
is % iudioious and substantial reduction
ul the revenue. not by un increase ol taxa.
ton. but by q reduction ol taxation upon
the nrrrsstrirs ui lilr and upon tIp ml.
truus u.yl iu our industries This would
hp IT Ar GREATER advantage tuour manu-.
lHriuur, and to thu lubufur who work BOO
their establishments than 900 ihH Iurpus.s
" duilca proposed Boo tho Republican tariff
bin. and besides ID would 11Url
much needed measure ~ wIiui
% the grylt body col consumers Who
10 lnst pay Tor nIl tLr materials and
100 ihH labor used boz uur mining, manu-
featuring and mechanical iuiuFir.c. With
cheaper materials and cheaper machinery
thrrU would be- uo necessity or excuse for
cheaper labor With wider markets l0r
our products there would by no Necessity
ur excuse iuf luDkpuis and Suspensions col
work. aud labor would have constant Dm.
Muympnt az ilif wages. Capital would
raIl1sa steady aud uniform profit. AMI
Coo consumer would not bu subject tI tIU
yzlYr.iDns II trusts and mDuUppI,s,
ma. s,rt .f fHgu~ nlHusf HFayrrf, 10.