The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1888-05-05
MR.. MILLS FOR REFORM.
He shows the FaIlaCy of the Argu-
meni That Protection Pro-
IcCts the EabOrer.

WASHINGTON, ID. c., April II.
During the late war, said Mr.. Mills
as he took the floor 10 open the debate,
the expenditures required by the enor-
nous military establishment demanded
that the burdens of taxation should be
Land heavily in all directions authorized
by the constitution The internal rev.
enuc tax and the direct tax had been
called into requisition to snppliment
the revenues arising from customs to
aid the treasury to respond to the
heavy demands daily made upOnit The
duties on imports had been raised from
an average of 1884 per cent i'll 1861 to
an average OF 4O.29 per cent during the
five wears from 1862 to 1866 inclusive.
This mad been recognized at the time
rs all exceptionally heavy burden. 1t
had been stated by the distinguished
gentlemen who presented the measure
al the time that this SIS intended as Il
war measure, a temporary measure,
aud we must as such give it our sup
port"
More than twenty years had elapsed
since the war ended. A generation
had passed and new generation had
appeared on the stage since peace had
returned to bless our common country,
but these war taxes still remained and
they were heavier to-day than they
were on the average during the five
years of the existence of hOstilities.
The average rate of duty during the
last five years amounted to A 81 per
cent, aud during the last year the aver
age was 47.lO.
WHOSE TAXES HAVE BEEN LESSENED.
After this large increase had been
made by congress, congress had i'm
posed slight direct or internal reve-
nue. tax upon domestic manufacturers
and that tax had brought into the
treasury in 1868 S127 900, 900. That
was but a 1.-THE of the heavy burdens
that were laid upon imports. 1t
amounted to about three per cent on
the whole manufactured products OF
the country in 1866. 1t was thought
TO be reasonable tax to impose on
manufacturers who were receiving
large bouutics from the government in
the enhancement of the prices of their
products TO pay three per cent when
they had increased their bouuties up 10
twenty-five per cent.
But that tax was gone.
1t could not live.
1t was tax on wealth.
Ii was a tax that came out of the
pockets of the manufacturers. 1t was
q tax that came from those into whose
pockets the government had brought
large bounties
Congress had impos sed tax on in
come to help carry on the war and
there were 400, 40 people in the United
States in 1866 that had $707 600, 900 OF
net income upon which they were as
sessed duty which brought into the
treasury in 1866 S22 100000.
But that tax had gone,
Ii was a tax on wealth.
1t was said to be an enormous tax.
IL was said to be inquisitorial in Its
nature. 1t was said 10 be oppressive
Ii was thought to be Just by those who
had charge of the administration OF the
government to take off the burdens
and place them on the shoulders OF
those whom the official report showed
had nothing but u living. And tax
of three per cent on net incomes
aggregating S7O7 100000 WAS swept
away, but the war tax on clothing,
upon food, upon employment OF labor
still remained Every effort that had
been made to bring the eXactions of the
government down To Il peace establish
ment had been resisted step by step,
and every effort had been defeated.
There had been II tax on railroads,
but il was gone. 1t had not lived
long after the war.
Ii had been tax on wealth
1t was said to be oppressive To tax
the wealthy.
There had been tax Oh insurance
companies. 1t was gone.
There had been Il tax on express
companies. Ii was gone.
There had been tax on bank dcpos-
its and bank capital Ii was gone.
Three hundred millions that had been
paid by the wealth of the country had
been swept away, and the burden OF
taxation had been made heavier rs il
had been loaded upon the shoulders OF
those Who had to support themselves
and the government.
Was tax of three per cent to he
paid out of the pockets of the manu-
| taclurcrs OF blankets Il weight more
enormous than the tax of sevcuty-ninG
per cent paid by the consumer on i'm
ported and domestic products? Was
the tax of .hreo per cent on incomes
more oppressive than the tax of lOO
per cent on w0mcn's and children 5
dress goods2 Yet all these taxes on
wealth had gone, and the gentlemen "I
! the minority boasted that they had re