The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-04-10
SENATOR HILLS HARANGUE.

many other legislators and still a
greater number Of the. common citizens
who have objections to it. The nature
Of the bill is such that it is sure to be
unsatisfactory in some respects to var
ious people for different reasons.
The interests OF one section of the
country are not directly those of some
others. That which appears to be bene-
fetal to some districts seems to be adj
verse to neighboring or remote places.
Each industry and locality is selfish
and clamors for its own regardless of
the general welfare. It is always thus
when any kind of a tariff measure is
under discussion.
A free trade bill is at present an i'm
possibility. Nobody expects such a
thing. a tariff for revenue bill, in
order not to do injury to any vested
right or established industry-and no.
body wishes to damage either-must of
necessity be somewhat in the nature
of a compromise A horizontal uniform
cut in rates of duty would occasion a
thousand times more outcry than the
Wilson bill has created.
The Republican party do not like the
bill, of course. It was not framed to
please or pIacate them But the ground
of their opposition is not very logical.
They are disappointed because it is so
conservative. It is not radical enough
to justify their predictions of what it
would be and what it would effect.
There is too much protection of Ameri-
can industry in its probable results to
suit them, although they have digniied
their high tariff class legislation with
the title of protection
Some Democrats. who do not see per-
haps, that they are acting traitorously
to their party, are echoing the cries of
the Republicans, and that for selfish
of sectional reasons, and few Of them
TO create prejudice against the admin
istration from ambitious motives.
Senator Hill may or may not be
among the latter class. His speech,
which will be found in our dispatches,
and some other of his utterances out
side of the Senate, show disposition
to antagonize the tariff bill and pander
to certain interests that may be of use
to him in the future. His principal OBJ
ject of attack, however, is the income
tax proposition. We do not regard the
reasons he advances for that opposition
as either strong or convincing.
1t may be all right for Hill to oppose
the income tax on the ground that the
people of New York-that is, the cap
itaHsts of that wealthy state-are
averse to it; but that will not count
for an argument Nor would the fact
that it had been recommended or en-
dorsed by the executive department, ii
that be true, act as valid objection
to the proposition. Just the same
with the statement that neither
party had announced an agree
ment as to an income tax. Parties
may go beyond the letter of their plat
form utterances, and the income tax
proposition is supplementary to the
tariff for revenue policy.
AS to the annoyance" it will cause
to people with incomes above $500 a
year, that is paltry objection. Tax
payers are annually annoyed" with
blanks to fill up, giving particulars as
to their taxable property, even down to
very small amounts. The same idea
as to an increase of rents as a conse-
auence of an income tax, may be adj
vanced as to any form of taxation. The
reduction of wages" threat is but an
echo of the protectionist cry and savors
very much of the arts of the dema-
gogue.
The sectional" part of his plea puts
one in mind of the local argument
about school taxes. It applies equally
to any general tax for public purposes
The wealthiest portions of the country
will contribute the largest amount tt
the public revenue And that is the
purpose and intent of the provision. Il
is meant as a tax to be paid by those
who are best able to contribute to the
public expenses. Calling it Socialism
does not make it so, nor if it is a prop.
er title will that prove it to be unwise
or improper; it is possible that some
features of what is denominated social
ism may be both polite and just.
That revenue reform bill must bt
passed by the Democratic Congress Il
correct. It was elected for that very
purpose. But it does not follow thai
the passage Of an income tax provision
will cause disaster to the Democratic
party, nor should the fear of that pre-,
vent its adoption, if it is right and nee
essary 10 the necessities of the govern