Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-08-22

medicines, which are dutiable at IS Sc De
gallon. More than $50 600 600. or nearl
one-fourth of the British revenues, are zAise'
from customs duties.
You will note the character of taxation :
which the revenue reformer invites the peo
pie of the United States. Both the break
fast table and the sick room are made to bea
a large part of the burden under the Britis
commendation. Every step we take in tina
direction, every enlargement of the free-Es
of com peting foreign products, every reduc
Of duty upon such products is hailed As
vindication of Golden and benefcence {
| British interests. Ii is in vain for the Britis
statesman to assure Us that their system
| best for u.s. We are not accustomed {.
look to our commercial rivals for disinterest
ed favors. at is folly said Washington
in his farewell address, ''in one nation Il
look for disinterested favors from another
that it must pay, with portion of its indie
pendence, for whatever it may accept unde
that character. There can be no create
error than to expect or calculate upon rea
| favors from nation to nation. 1t is an illu
sion which experience must cure and which
just pride ought to discard" We are not
Mr. President, insensible to the good opinion
of mankind and of the English-speakine
race, but when it is to be had only at the ex
pense of our industrial independence, at ths
| sacrifice of the dignity and independence oi
labor and the destruction of national prosper
ity, we must regard it with supreme suspi
cion and turn from it as the eulogy of selfish
interest and the commendation of interested
greed.
The only theory of taxation, and the one
which believe to be essential to American
development and national prosperity. is based
upon an exactly opposite principle. 1t per
mits all articles of foreign production, wheth-
er of the field, the factory, or the mine, ex-
cept luxuries only, which we cannot pro-
duce in the United States, to enter our
ports free and unburdened by custom
house exactions. The duty is to be imposed
upon the foreign competing product, that is,
the product which, if brought into this coun-
try, would contend with the products of our
own soil, our own labor, and our own facto-
ries in our own markets. Under this sys-
tenn if the foreign producer would enter our
market with a competing product he must
contribute something for the privilege which
he is to enjoy and this something in the form
of duties, goes into the treasury, furnishing
revenue to the government; and these du-
ties operate to protect the joint product of
labor and capital against like foreign prod
uct.
This mode of levying duties answers a
double purpose. 1t produces revenue to the
Government, and at the same time fosters
and encourages the occupations of our own
people, promotes industrial development,
opens up new mines, builds new factories
and sustains those already established, which
in turn furnish employment to labor at fair
and remunerative wages.
revenue tariff accomplishes but a
single purpose that of raising revenue; it
has no other mission while protective tar
if accomplshes this and more-it brings
revenue to the American Treasury and dis
eliminates in favor of the Anne. lean citizen
revenue tariff invites the product of for
eign labor and foreign capital to occupy our
markets free and unrestraned in competi-
ton with the product of our own labor and
capital protective tariff invites the product
of foreign labor and foreign capital which
are necessary to the wants of our people
(Which we cannot produce in the United
States) to occupy our markets and go un-
taxed to the people, but insists that every
foreign product which is produced at home,
or can be successfully, in quantities
capable of supplying the domestic consump-
suitable rewards to our labor, bear duty
which shall not be SO high as to prohibit i'm
portations, but at such arate as win produce
the necessary revenues, and ut the same time
not destroy but encourage American produc-
ton, 1t says to the world of producers, al
you want to share with the citizens of the
United States their home market, you
must pay for the privilege of doing it.
Your product shall not enter in free and un-
restrained competition with the product of
our own people, but shall be Disseminated
against to such an extent as to protect and
defend our own"
1t is alleged as serious objection to pro-
tective duties that the tax, whatever it may
be, increases 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
consumer. This objection would be worthy
of serious consideration if it were true, but,
as has been demonstrated over and over
again, it is without foundation in fact
Wherever the foreign product has success
full competition at home the duty is rarely
paid by the consumer, 1t is paid from the
profits of the manufacturer, or divided be-
tween him and the merchant, or the impor-
ter, and diminishes their profits to that ex-
tent. Duty or no duty, without home COM
petition the consumer would fare worse than
he fares now. There is not in the
long line of staple products consumed
by the people, single one which has
not been cheapeDed by competition at
home, made possible by protective duties.
There is not an article that enters into
the every day uses of the family which is
produced in the United States, that has not
been made cheaper and more accessible as
the result of home production and develop
ment, which was to be secured only by the
sturdy maintenance of the protective system.
While this is true of protective tariffs, ex-
actly the opposite is true of revenue tariffs.
They are always paid by the consumer. A
duty put upon foreign product, the like of
which is not produced at home, and which
enters our markets free from home comreti-
ton, the cost to the American consumer is
exactly the foreign cost with the duty added,
whatever that may be, much or little. Sup
posing, for example, there was tax upon
tea and coffee There being no production
of these articles in the United States, and
therefore no competition here, the cost 10
the American public would be the cost abroad
and the duty added. We imported last year
526, 4s9 900 pounds of coffee. duty of ten
cents pound would have produced to the
government over S52 .000, 900, which would
have been paid by the II 900, 900 families of
this country, consumers of this article.
Eighty million five hundred and eighty
four thousand pounds of tea were imported
last year. At ten cents pound SIS 900, 900
and upwards would have gone into the treas
ury, every dollar of which would have been
paid by our own people. Take sugar as an
other example. We produced last year in
this country about eight per cent. of what
our people consumed. The duty collected
from imported sugar amounted to SOS, ,000,-
600. The domestic production was SO incon-
siderable as compared with the domestic con-
sumption as to have had little, if any appre-
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 eontrasted with
the domestic demand that it in no wise con-
trolled or influenced the price.
The protective system but invokes the
highest law of nature, that of self preserva-
ton. There is every reason, founded in JUS
tice. why the American producer should in
every constitutional way be favored as against
the foreign producer whose products COM