The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1892-04-19

81 am not objecting to a tariff for
revenue. If it were possible to arrange
a system just as believe it ought to be
arranged, l should collect one part of
our revenues for the support of the
Federal Government from internal
taxes on whiskey and tobacco These
are luxuries and may we'll be taxed. I
should collect another part frOma tariff
levied upon imported articles with raw
materials on the free list-the lowest
duties upon the necessaries of life and
the highest duties upon the luxuries of
life. And then | should collect another
part of the revenues from a graduated
income tax upon the wealth of this
country"
That is a beautiful proclamation. 1t
is like the old fish TT Up, with one
mouth down the stream and the other
UP, and it "catches 'em a-COmin' and
a-gwine." Great laughter. Mr..
Chairman, if the tariff is right, 1t is
right. FavOritism is a necessary Incl
dent to any general tariff system.
Whatever tariff you impose, protection
is necessarily incident to it, and if pro
lection is wrong, then the incident is
wrong. If you are to have a tariff at
all. protection is part of its nature
necessarily flows from it If protection
is wrong, then the tariff is wrong, and
a so per cent. tariff is just 5 per cent.
less justifiable than a As per cent. tariff,
and that is all there is of 1T. Laughter.
Mr.. Chairman, the gentleman says,
1--WE will levy q tax upon the neCeS-
saries of life"
Why should the n~ecessaries of life
be taxed at all? Where is there a gov
ernmental principle on which it can be
defended?
Mr.. Chairman, in that Ocala plat
form, which possibly you have heard
of somewhere or another, or dreamed
about-in that DC ia platform we say
that taxes ought not to be laid on the
necessaries IF life at all, and the in
come tax should be established. An
income tax goes to q man squarely,
like a government ought to go to its
subject, and tells him directly just
how much it wants; goes to the strong
man and lays the burden upon him IN
| accordance with his strength; goes to
the wealthy man and takes no part of
his wealth, but a part of the income of
that wealth; goes to the planter and
takes, not a part of the land, but a part
of the income from the land.
Mr.. Grady. Do not al us SUBJECTS.
Mr.. Watson Well, as we are SOW
ereign and subject at the same time, it
is not going to hurt us much laugh
ter.
Mr.. Long. the gentleman per-
NIT me to ask him a question?
Mr.. Watson. Yes, sir.
Mr.. Long. When you spoke # the
Orala platform, did you mean to speak
of that platform, or the n adopted at
St. Louis?
Mr.. Watson You can call it either
one you like, for they are both the
same.
Mr.. Long. My idea was that the St.
Louis platform dropped out the tariff
altogether.
Mr.. Watson. l am coming to that.
You are mistaken about that. But,
before | go further, l desire to say that
the internalrevenue system as a methOd
of collecting taxation is all wrong.
Why? Because the system necessarily
leads to inequality, injustice, to riot,
| perjury, espionage, domiciliary visits,
| and to murder; and any system of
taxation whichnecessarily carries these
incidents with it ought not to be con-
tinued. No tax system should be toll
| Grated which constantly involves the
loss of human life.
Now, upon that subject, l will sub
NIT very briefly what has been the re
suit of this system of collecting the
revenue. In the State of Georgia, Mr..
! Chairman, the r. Ceipts from the inter
nal revenue system for 1891 are Ssh
600, What do you suppose it costs to
collect that comparatively small
amount?
1t cost 800 900 in round numbers to
collect that 1914, O00-Over 20 per cent.
In the State of Arkansas they collect
$97, 900 at an expense Of $28, 600, nearly
80 per cent. In Alabama they collect
1913, 600 at an expense Of $24, 900 over
20 per cent. And so on.
Mr.. Hopkins, of Illinois. On the
same line, l will ask the gen -leman
whether he has the estimates or the
figures or the amount collected in Hi
nois and the percentage of cost of col
lection there?
F., Mr.. Watson. l will state frankly to
the committee that, taking the whole
system together, the percentage of this
cost Of collection is small.
Mr.. Hopkins, of Illinois. That is not
the point | desire to make.
Mr.. Watson. Averaging the whole
thing, the expense of collecting is not
large.
Mr.. Hopkins, of Illinois. But the
point | desire to make is that in Illinois
the cost Of collection is very small
compared with the cost in Georgia.
Mr.. Watson. MI. Chairman, I must
decline to yield further. The history
of Illinois, l have no doubt, is very in
teresting, but I do not care to hear it
just at this moment. Laughter The
point I make is that when it comes to
great States like the State of Georgia,
like the State of Alabama, like the State
Of Arkansas, a system of taxation in
volving an expense of Is or 80 per cent.
for the cost of every dollar collected
must necessarily be defective.
say further that if such a system
carries with it a whole lot of undesir,