St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1888-08-30

structlon of national prosperity, we must |
regard it with supreme suspicion and turn |
from it as the eulogy OF selfish interest
and the commentator of Interested greed. |
The other theory of taxation, and the !
one which I believe to be essential to |
American
DEVELOPMENT AND NATIONAL PROSPERITY |
is based upon an exactly opposite princi- |
ple 1t permits all articles of foreign pro-
duction, whether of the field, the factory |
or the mine, except luXuries only, which |
we cannot produce 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 pro-
duct; that is, the product which, if 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, if the foreign producer
would enter our market with competing
product, he must contribute something
for the privile ge which he is to enjoy, and
this something, il the form of duties, goes
into the treasury, furnishing revenue to
the governments; and these duties operate
to protect the joint product of labor and
capital against a like foreign product.
This mode of levying duties answers
double purpose. 1t produces revenue to
the government, and at the same time fos-
tiers and encourages the occupations of our
own people, promotes industrial develop
ment, opens up new mines. builds new
factories. and sustainS those already es-
tablished, which, in turn, furnish employ
ment to labor at fair and remunerative
wages. A revenue tariff accomplishes but
single purpose-that of raising revenue;
it has no other mission; while a protective
tariff accomplishes this and more-1t
brings revenue to the American treasury
and discriminates in favor of the Ameri-
can citizen. A revenue tariff invites the
product of foreign labor and foreign CAPT
| tai 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 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 untaxed to the people,
| but insists that every foreign product
| which is produced at home, or can be sue
| cessfully, in quantities capable of supply
| ing the domestic consumption, shall,
whenever necessary to maintain suitable
rewards to our labor, bear duty which
| shall not be so high as to prohibit lmpor-
| tatiOns, but at such rate as will produce
| the necessary revenues, and at the same
time not destroy, but encourage American
production. II says to the world Of pro
ducers, 'sIf you want to share with the cit
liens OF the United States their home mar
ket you must pay for the privilege of
doing it,. Your product shall not enter in
free and unrestrained competition with
che product of our own people, but shall
be discriminated against to SUCH an extent
as to
FULLY PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR OWN.
Hon. Alexander Stephens, distinguish
ed citizen of your own State, and endeared
to the people Of the South, stated on June
%, 1882, the theory SO well that 1 beg to
to quote from him:
''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 is 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 1857. This system of
internal revenue taxation by excise and
theirs of the republic in times of peace. I
| 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 attached to it in the American
| mind. There was never any legislation
! more abhorent to the people of this coun-
| tIy, even in their colonial condition, than
! what was known as the Infamous stamp
| act.''
] 1t is alleged as a serious objection to
| protective duties that the tax, whatever it
| 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-
| ton would be worthy of serious constdera-
| ton if it were true, but, as has been de-
monstrated over and over again, it Is
without foundation in fact. Wherever
| the foreign product has successful compe-
| tition at home the duty is rarely paid by
| the consumer. 1t is 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
ne fares now. There Is not IN the long line
of staple products consumed by the people
a single one which has not been cheapened
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 tie United
States that has not been made cheaper and
more accessible as the result of home pro-
duction and development, which was to
be secured only by the sturdy maintenance
of the protective system. While this is
true of protective tariffs, exactly
THE OPPOSITE Is TRUE OF REVENUE TAR
IFS.
They are always paid by the consumer.
\ duty put upon 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 con-