The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-04-12
An Ad VaIorem Tariff:

reform committee. including its proposed
tariff bill, in pamphlet form. The objec-
ton made by some congressman that the
framing of the bill by the club was piece
OF impudencs" has met very little favor
throughout the country. The Reform club
is known everywhere for the magnificent
service il has performed in the battle for
tariff reform, and, inasmuch az in the past
committees of tariff bensfciAries of all
descriptions have been heard at great
length. il is taken by almost universal
consent that men who have devoted their
time and talents to the interests of the
consumers of the country should be
given a full hearing now. Besides,
the people are not especially interested in
questions of etiquette. What they want
is tariff reform. They do not propose 20
be diverted from that purpose by trifes.
They want the best law possible. No one
cares who makes the best suggestions.
The Important thing is that the best sug-
gestions be adopted, no matter whence
they come, and we have no doubt that
congress will act on that principle.
The law proposed by the Reform club
committee purports to be OH logical
basis. The aim was to put all duties on the
broad principle OF equity under the gen
eral and primary principle that the tariff
should be for revenue with orly such pro-
lection as incidentally resulted. The
most important of the secondary princi-
pies is stated by the committee thus:
All duties have been made strictly I'D
UdiOre1n. except some of those which are
levied as compensatory for internal rev.
enue taxes upon similar articles produced
at home. In such cases. when a specific
duty is imposed, il is by one general pro-
vision made precisely eQua. to that i'm
posed by the internal revenue law; and
these particular taxes ought not 10 be con-
sideTed part OF the tariff, but rather
part of the internal revenue system.
This principle is certainly worthy the
highest recommendation. and it ought TO need
very little COMMUNICATION to democrats. be-
cause IL was the basis of the tariff law
from 1916 to 1861 and that period is the
one to which all tariff reformers point as
the era OF the most satisfactory tariff the
country has ever had. 1t has been
tried. 1t has proven successful TO
adopt il again is merely TO make
the best advantage of our own ex-
perience, and to relievs the new
law TO q very large extent from the danger
OF experiment No political party would
be wise to venture into unknown seas
when il has an assured and perfectly clean
course open before il. But the al rGi0rem
system does not depend on expediencv
alone in its candidacy for public favor IL
has all tbs argument OF justice and prac-
ticabIlity also. We have never had
tariff that was not in a large part al
UalJraH because no matter how earnest
the advocates of specific duties were,
there were many things 10 which their
theories could not be practically applied,
and In the most extreme tariffs the Gd
UGiOreH duties have besn at least one-half
of all And in many cases where it is ap-
piled the results are absurd. Thus cotton
stockings valued at go cents a dozen are
taxed 80 cents under the present tariff,
while cotton stockings valued at 81 cents
are taxed 6S cents. 1t is obvious that this
absurd injustice would be remedIed by an
dd t0lOrem tax.
But the chief arguments against specific
or mixed duties is that they are confusing
and that they afford easy cover tor impOs-
ing the burden of taxation on the poor.
The shifting from one kind of duty TO an
other, that has been so largely indul ged in
under republican rule, makes il almost
impossible to show conclusively what is
the actual effect of the change, and thus
gives better opportunity 10 deceive the
people. Moreover, the cheapening of cost
Of production operates as an automatic in-
GREASE of tax under specific duties Steel
rails are good example of this. What
was originally tax OF only As per cent.
became by cheaper production a tax of
over 100 per cent, and yet there appeared
TO be no increase at all.
The chief object of tariff beneficiaries is
TO get the advantage OF the largest market.
As consumption of most articles is nearly
IN proportion 10 population they desire to
prohibit or heavily tax the importation OF
thinRs used by the masses of the people
Unfortunately the masses of the people
must be CHASED as poor in contradis-
tluCblOn 70 the FitIAs anu AueIblOf6 the OD-
ject OF protective tariff Gao be reached
only by taxing the poor most heavily.
This has usually been done by specific dn-
ties, but in the Mckinley law the pro-
tec,ed classes become so bold as to do the
same thing by dd raloren duties also.
With specific duties this difference il not
go easily noted. A man who paws 30
cents yard on cloth worth 81 yard does
not quickly realize that he lie paying 10
per cent more tax than a man who paws
so cents yard on cloth worth g yard
IL seems almost automatic that the fairsst
way to tax is in proportion to value and
that il exactly what an unmixed I'D
raEoreJa duty does. We believe that the
adoption OF this principle by congress
will be both'beneficiAl ana satisfactory to
| the people.
The Roach Matter.
It has become very evident that the re-