The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-09-13
CHEESE Is NOT MEAT.

admit the repentant New York Sun into
the fold once more, but only on condi-
ton that 1t shall show a disposition and
an ability to keep within the Enclosure.
We think the Sun means well, but it is
not yet thoroughly educated in the
democratic doctrine. 1t is. as it were,
An infant crying in the night
And with no language but a cry.
Coming, as it does, from the milk of
protecson to the strong meat Of revenue
taxation, it needs the friendly aid of a
nurse, guardian, to direct its unsteady
steps to the proper lunch counter and
restrain the Tactic proclivities of the
cherub. which would cause it to call
for cheese instead of the ham sandwich
which its system demands. There are
natural causes for this confusion in the
infant mind. 1t reasons that cheese is
solid, and therefore it cannot be milk.
1t has heard of no food beside milk ex-
cept meat. and therefore it concludes
that cheese must be meat But cheese
is not meat, and therefore the infant
must be restrained from eating it and
from rendering chunks of it to its little
playmates. who are also DESTROYS of be-
coming men,
For some weeks the Sun has been as
serting that tariff for revenue was an
ad valorem tax levied equally on all i'm
ports, including articles now on the free
list as well as those on the dutiable list.
In a recent issue it explains it's theory
thus:
Our present tariff laws are protective
In their purpose, and if they should be
reduced or equalized, the protective pur-
pose would still remain. Moreover,
they would not bear equitably upon all
the people, because they would raise
the revenue by duties upon a few inn
ported articles and not upon all. They
would thus be entirely unequal in their
operations. The people who should con-
sumo those articles would contribute to
the revenue. and the people who should
not consume them would not contribute.
tariff for revenue only cannot be
constructed in this country as it is in a
country of classes and of arbitrary dis
unctions, like England Here it must be
made TO bear equally upon the consum-
ers Of all imported goods, in proportion
to the respective amounts of their con-
sumption. This is a country of equal
rights and equal burdens. and not of
classes with special exemptions and
special privileges.
Now, this is cheese-cheese of the most
ancient and odoriferous character
which would not only offend the nostrils
Of an adult tariff for revenue man, but
civ 1T
Of his stomach. 1t does not look like
meat. 1t does not smell like meat. 1t
does not taste like meat 1t does rot
feel like meat. None but an infant
could mistake it for meat Tariff COR
revenue only is a phrase designed to
exclude the idea of protection. That is
to say, the object of such tariff is to
raise revenue for the government as
distinguished from a tariff whose OBJ
ject is to exclude foreign goods and
give the exclusive possession of the
home market" to domestic producers.
The idea of reaching every individual
in the country by the tax has nothing to
do with it. The object is to reach
every consumer of the articles taxed.
Neither is it a part Of the idea OF
tariff for revenue to tax all articles,
but only to tax such articles as will
give revenue to the government. Rev
enue and protection are inimicaI. You
cannot have revenue without importing
goods. You cannot have protection
without excluding goods. The sole ques-
ton. therefore. is what goods should be
taxed to produce revenue, and at what
point should the tax be placed to pro-
duce the greatest revenue.
Perhaps we can make clear to the
Sun the distinction between the cheese
at which it is grasping and the demo-
cratic meat to which it should aspire
by illustrating. Suppose we take the
Suns advice and levy an ad vaIorem
tax Of 20 per cent. on all imported ar
tcles. On some articles. as, for exam
pie, copper and copper ore, this would
be a duty more thoroughly protective
than the Mckinley law itself. 1t would
practically prohibit Importation and pre-
vent the receipt of any material revenue
from this source. On the other hand a
20 per cent. tariff on wheat or corn
would produce neither protection nor
revenue, because we do not import these
articles except occasionally for seed.
On sugar a 20 per cent. tariff could
hardly be called protective, though it
would probably justify a considerable
amount of sugar planting. 1t would pro-
duce a large revenue. On cotton and
wooden goods a 20 per cent. tariff would
produce a large revenue, but would be
protective to some extent. On coffee a
20 per cent. tariff would be wholly for
revenue. 1T is therefore evident that a
tariff for revenue must not be levied
equally on all articles, but on those
articles which will produce revenue, and
must be levied at such rate as fits the
particular article. 1t is impossible that
any one rate should be a revenue rate
on all articles.
We trust we have now made 1t clear
to the Sun that even as cheese may be
said to be milk with the juice squeezed
out. so its dead level ad valorem tariff
is nothing but protection with the APP