The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-07-22
THREE OBJECTIONS.

The Hon, WILLIAM L. WILSON, in his
recent speeches here, remarked that there
are three objections to the greater part of
the articles taxed by our tariff list. These
objections were stated early in our history
when it was proposed to lay TAX on mo-
lasses.
One New England statesman objected to
the tax on molasses on the ground that mo-
lasses was an article used on the tables of
the poor people. An increase in its price
therefore meant more costly living for the
poor. I. e., would compel the poor to work
harder in order to live than If this article Of
necessity were left untaxed.
Another New England statesman objected
for the reason that molssses was the raw
material for great New England indus
try: so that if its price were advanced, that
industry would have to close its doors or at
least curtail its operations, thereby throw
ing American capital and labor out of
profitable employment.
And third New England statesman also
objected to the tax. The reason he gave was
that some OF his people, on the New Eng
land coast, caught fish ana they took more
fish than they themselves could eat or than
they could sell in this country. So they
sent their surplus abroad. Part Of the pay
they received for these fish was molasses.
''If You tax the molasses," said he, $50 as
to increase its price, you diminish the
amount of molasses my people will get for
q given amount of fish, so that you might
as veil take some Of their fish from them
to begin with IS to take from them part Of
the pay they receive for il. Indeed, to
prohibit or to discourage the importation
of molasses will correspondingly stop or
lessen the expectation of fish" This Con-
gresham was opposed 20 the tax on mo-
lasses, therefore, because it prevented
Americans from exporting the surplus
products Of their industry.
One or more of these objections applies
to the tax on every article on which Demo-
cratic tariff reformers have proposed to re-
duce or remove the duty.
First, the tariff in creases the cost of liv-
ing to the poor people; for in all cases the
tax is heaviest on the articles used by the
great masses Of the people, and lightest on
articles used exclusively by the rich. The
tax on clothing of the coarser kinds is much
higher than that on costly cloths and fine
fabrics. The tax on ten dollars worth of
the coarsest wooleus is $40; on worsteds,
81, and on broadcloth only s.. The tax on
diamonds is 10 per cent. if cut and nothing
if uncut The tax on implements of almost
every kind is A. per cent. The tax on flsn-
nels is from So to li3 per cent /; on blankets
az to 116 per cent; on wool hats 65 to liz
per cent. on knit goods IS to lbs per cent :;
women's and children's dress goods ~ to
l23 per cent and SO on, while the free list
begins with the significant addition,
Books and pamphlets printed exclusively
in language other than English" and ends
with, paintings in oil, water colors and
statuary."
Git is not because the Republican party
hates the poor and those in moderate cir
cumstances that the tax Is highest upon the
articles they use. 1t is o mere matter of
business with the protected manufacturers.
1t pays them better to have tax on the
clothing:of the poor than on that of the rich,
because the former class is so much larger.
The rich are few in number. 1t will not pay
to have even high tax on the clothes they
wear, as rich man will scarcely wear q
greater number OF suits in a year than
poor man wears. But tax on articles used
by practically the whole people pays, and
this is the kind Of tax demanded by the pro-
tected manufacturers. The tax on cutlery
was increased from IS to s. per cent.
and ON tin from IS to a. per cent, while the
tax on champagne was raised only 81 per