The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-12-02
Tariff for Revenue Only.

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
A tariff for revenue only Is the most I'M
equal and unjust system of taxation ever
devised by man. If no good comes to our
Industries, to our wage workers and TO the
country generally through protection, then
the tariff should be abolished entirely. II
the tariff is a tax, and the consumer pays
it, as Democrats assert, then the straight
out free-trader is right in his contention,
and all tariff laws should be repealed If
paid by the consumer, then 1t is a per cap
tia tax, and the poor pay as much as the
rich. Why should a mechanic, whose only
income is his daily wages, be compelled to
pay as much to support the government as
a man who is worth his millions? This Is
just what the poor man does. If the Demo-
cratic theory in regard to the tariff is true.
But does the consumer pay the duty? If
he does, 1 want to know how it is that the
foreign manufacturer has the impression
that he pays it? How does he come by
such an impression? This Is a very strange
state of affairs. Here our Democratic pol
protection is robbery" that the tarin Is
a tax and ''the consumer pays the duty"
and many other phrases that any poll par
rot could repeat with equal facility. while
the sturdy old English manufacturer says.
THAT is all very we'll for you politicians,
but i know who pays the duty, and / want
it taken off," And this is what Cleveland,
and Wilson, and Bynum are working at
taking off the duty, and John Bull dons
very much,' while the polite Frenchman
says, "Mercie, messieurs, mercie boucoup."
Now will some tariff reformer explain the
necessity for all this thankfulneSs on the
part of European manufacturers and mer-
chants, If We poor consumers in this coun-
try pay the duty?
that is the overwhelming compassion that
the foreign manufacturer has for the poor,
unfortunate American consumer. Ihis ex-
PLANTATION may not be entirely satisfactory
to everybody, but it Is the most plausible
one / can think of at this moment. But
revenue is what Wilson and Bynum are
after, and revenue only. And how do they
expect TO get it? Simply by reducing the
tariff. 1t is conceded that the present tariff
law does not produce any more revenue
than is required by the government, and IL
would seem rather paradoxical 10 under
take to increase, or even maintain, the
present revenue by decreasing the duty.
they are about. They say, IF we lower
the tariff one-half, the probabilities are
that importations will be twice as much as
they now are. and. therefore, the revenue
will be just as much as ii is under the Nc
Kinley law" This is the Wilson-Bynum
scheme, and it will probably work out TO
their entire satisfaction. If they reduce the
tariff one-half on glass, and England and
France sells us just twice as much as they
do under the present law, then these tariff
for-revenue-only reformers will be very
happy. They have succeeded in killing
two birds with one stone" They have re-
formed the tariff, and collected their rev.
enue. This should cause Mr.. Bynum TO
rub his hands in ecstacy.
But while we are doubling our importa-
tons of glass from Europe, in order to
get a little revenue, what will our great
glass factories in Muncie. and Marion. and
Kokomo. and Elwood, and Anderson, and
Alexandria be doing? Why, they will prob
ably be running on half time, or possibly
not at all. But Wilson and Bynum will
have their revenue all the same, and reve-
nue. is what they are after.
Now If any man who works in a glass
factory yet thinks that this "tariff-for-rev-
enue-only'' scheme Is a good one for him
and his family, let him sing praises TO
Bynum every day OF his life. If not, then
let him stop voting the Democratic ticket.
JOHN Il. GLOVER.
indianapolis, Dec. 1.