The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-03-10

upon any question OF pfnclple. IL
two rogIes should fall out, and quar-
rel over the question of the purpose
and extent of a contemplated larceny,
any one could see that such a contest
involved no condemnation of theft, no
devotion to, or regard for, honesty.
The rogues would be agreed that the
larceny should be committed, however
much they might differ as to the use
to be made of the stolen property, or
as to the amount of property to be
taken. But that which appears to be
simple in an illustration of the sort we
have mentioned, becomes misty and
uncertain in the discussion of questions
of public policy. It may startle some
of our Democratic friends to tell them
that there is no difference, in principle,
between their tariff notions and policy
and those Of the Republican party.
But startle them as it may, the truth
must be told. There is no difference
in principle between a low tariff: and
a high tariff, except a difference in de-
gree. If the Republican tariff policy
is an iniquity, then the Democratic
tariff policy is only a lesser iniquity.
The one is a tariff with protection as
the end and revenue as the incident;
the other is a tariff with revenue as
the end and protection as the incident.
We dare to maintain. the thesis that
any system of duties upon imports is
based upon a fundamental iniquity.
Duties upon imports are fundament-
ally Ubiquitous, because they hinder the
free intercourse of people with people.
Civilization makes progress mainly by
business contract Of country with
country. The superior elements in
the civilization of any country will
transmit themselves most rapidly to a
less favored people and country
through the business intercourse of
those countries. Any system, there
fore, which limits the intercourse of
country with country must hinder the
civilization and progress of the less
favored country. This argument may
appear to some to be Ethiopian and far
fetched. We do not see how it can
well appear otherwise to those narrow
persons who commit themselves to
the collecting of revenues by customs
duties. But the progress of men in the
line of those achievements which add
to the sum of virtues, and enlarge
the extent of our powers over the re-
fractory forces of nature, and increase
the sum~of our happiness, and broaden
our sympathies, and quicken u aspi-
rations, is certainly not unworthy of
the attention of statesmen. We make
no doubt at all that the Decalogue it.
self seems Ethiopian and impracticable
to the man who can see anything but
a fundamental wrong in any tariff sys-
tenn of the past, or Of the present.
Duties upon imports are fundament-
ally Ubiquitous because they levy a
burdensome tax upon our human ne
cessities. If the city of Raleigh should
tax the daily hunger Of it's citizens to
support the municipal government in
a style Of extravaganza and waste, the
people of this quiet and peaceful old
town would hurl the city government
out of both power and life in less time
than a week. But what is the differ
ence in levying a tax upon actual
hunger and actual nakedness, and levy
ing a tax upon the things that are nee
essary to satisfy hunger and cover
nakedness a.? What is the difference
between taxing a man because he is
hungry and taxing him until he be-
comes hungry What is the differ
ence between taxing a man because
he is cold, and taxing him until he is
compelled to get cold ? What is the
difference between taxing a mans
actual tastes, and taxing everything
that he uses to crafty his tastes? We
impeach this system of tariff taxation
of high crimes and misdemeanors, in
that it lays heavy burdens and griev-
ances to be borne upon our sheerest hui
man necessities.
Duties upon imports are fundament-
ally iniquitous because they levy a tax
for the support of the government
upon consumers, to the exclusion of
other classes. The man who does
not know that both the consumers of
imnOrtad goods and the cOOSI1nonrc of
the protected home produced goods,
pay all the taxes-the uncounted mil
lions of the revenUe-has not kan
ined the subject, or else he has not
enough capacity to understand the
most elementary proposition in econ