The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1893-02-11
For Revenue Only.

for q basis Of tariff for revenue |
only, according to the longpro-
claimed and well-understood Dem
ocratic policy. During the year
the imports ofsaving and 4,000,000,-
600 of revenue due to the repeal of
the sugar bounty. There is no
other article of import that would
afford anything like so great a
mount of fiscal revenue, with so
snail a cost of collection and so
light burden to consumers. The
planters of Louisiana, who fully
understand the operation ola tariff,
prefer this duty of Il cents pound
on sugar to the bounty of 9 cents
pound. While the duty would
afford them some protection, they
are disinclined to come up to the
Treasury every year for aims.
The imports off coffee, which a.
mounted last year to 626,S2S,963
pounds, would yield upward of $780,
100000 of revenue from a duty was
of y cents pound, and when it
was in operation ex-senator Ed
munds argued that it did not en-
hance the cost of coffee to America
consumers. While consumers
bnew better than this, they never
complained of a tax every cent of
which went into the Government.
20 with tea, the imports of which
amounted last year to 81 ,474,672
pounds. a duty of cents pound
on tea, instead of the old duty of
Is cents pound, would produce
upward of$4, 100000.
These three imports, which thus
might be made to yield to the pub
lie Treasury $S0,000,000 annually,
constitute the basis of an ideal ta-
riff for revenue only. Political pro-
tectionists, of course. would furious
ly assail this policy, and dolefully
lament over duties that rob the
people of "a free breakfast table,"
If they should really desire a free
breakfast table, let them move for
repeal of the high duties on earth
enware, glassware, table cutlery,
table linen, napkins, and all the
other taxed accessories of the
American citizens morning meal.
But the tariff beneficiaries, the
men who have practical and per-
sonal interest in the question, und-
derstand this thing great deal
better. The protectionists Of this
class, whose interests deserve con-
sideration, recognize that the only
alternative lies between this ideal
tariff for revenue only and a ruth
less cutting down of protective du-
ties to the lowest revenue stand
ard. These protectionists would
prefer moderate revenue duties on
sugar, coffee and tea to sudden
and sweeping removal of protec-
tive duties upon textile fabrics of
every description, products of iron
and steel, earthenWare, glassware
and so forth, and their interests
therefore will bring them, in spite
of themselves, into acquiescence in
the Democratic tariff policy.
The movement for Tariff Reform
has made small progress in the
last ten years, and the revolution
in which it eliminated last Nov
ember has no significance if the
people can be longer deceived on
this question. But they will not
be deceived. In declaring at two
successive elections against the
Mckinley tariff with its iniquities
and absudities, they meant to sup
plant it with rational and COM
prehensive revenue policy. They
would nst tolerate, therefore, any
piddling, half-faced attempt to cob
BILE the existing tariff laws with
new patches here and there. When
they pronounced for Tariff Reform
at the ballot box they meant Tariff
Reform in the largest and fullest
sense of the phrase.
The American people have new
er quarreled with taxes that go
directly into the public Treasury
to meet the ueeds of their Govern
ment, and hence they recognize the
propriety of levying duties on su-
gar, coffee and tea which in yield
ing large public revenues divert
none into private pockets. In ord
er to build up their system of spoli-
alton the protectionists removed
the duties on these imports. In
order to build up tariff for reve-
nue. only on a solid foundation
these duties must be restored. The
more effective the work of Tariff
| Reform the more speedily the
party Of Protection will be disarm-
ed.-Phila, Record.