The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-08-15
THE ..sUN" AWRY.

The New York Sun continues to grow
cratic platform, which declares against
protection as unconstitutional and a
fraud, and to contend that "a strictly
revenue tariff cannot contain free list. -
Quoting from the language of the plat
form that ''the federal government has
no constitutional power to impose and
collect tariff duties except for the purpose
of revenue only,' 1t proceeds to argue
that the converse of this must be true:
that is: 1.-THE government has no con-
stitutional power to remove, remit or re-
duce tariff duties except with a view to
revenue only"
1t is S TRANCE that so able writer as
the editor of the San permits such
poor reasoning as that to occupy place
in his vigorous paper. 1t is notso strange
that country editors of the Republican
persuasion copy the stuff with glee, i'm
agining they are scoring point against
tariff reform.
Why cannot a purely revenue tariff
schedule omit certain articles, say for
instance raw materials, from the list of
dctiable articles? Simply because the
Sun says so, that is all. If a revenue
tariff may not do this because-according
to the SAINT would be in the nature of
protection, then a protective tariff can
not reduce duty or put anything on the
free list because-according to most Re-
pablicaus-that is in the nature of free
trade. It would be we'll for the San to
study the effects of ''the converse' on
its own proposition.
England is said to be a free trade
country because IL has big free list and
its tariff Is on revenue basis. Accord
ing to the Suns peculiar notion, Eng
land policy must be a protective system.
Which is right, the Sun or its Republican
admirers, who take entirely opposite
ground en- this particular question.
The San, which poses as great author
ity on language, seems to forget that g
ariff for revenue only means simply that
duties shall be imposed for no other
purpose than to obtain revenue,
not that everything shall be
made dutiable. The term cannot
be reasonably construed to convey
any such meaning as that which the iSm
pretends to draw from it. We say sspre-
tends,'' because there is a streak o.
malice in that journalistic luminary an6
we are not sure that it is not devilmenl
rather than argument that prompts it.
anti-reform utterances.
The idea that If Congress has no con-
stitutional power to collect tariff duties
for protection, it has none to reduce Of
take off duties that have been imposed fol
protection, is kind of reasoning 81
grotesque that it is startling to see it il
the Sun, though we are not surprised
that it is echoed by some Republican
organs.
A tariff for revenue only does not i'm
ply a tariff on every article imported
Nor does it imply an equal amount on
everything that is taxed. So long as the
duties imposed are levied for no othel
purpose than to raise revenue for tn,
government, the principle is adhered II
in practice. 1t is in the constitutions
power of Congress to lay and collect Gus
toms duties, etc., for the necessary ex
penses of government. That implies the
right to regulate those duties at dis
erection SO long as the proper purpose O
their collection is kept in view. Tha
seems so evident that we are astonishe(
that the Sun should assert to the contrary
whether its remarks are made by mis-
take or simply out of cross and crabbe,
perversity.