The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-09-23

ing the Mckinley act we provided that at
lected hereafter from people who have
goods net incomes, rather than from peo-
pie who have nothing but their wants,
and their labor with which TO meet them
What is this but a transfer of taxation
Tor the support of me government from
f for t h54orr rich? p0 What e Is sne il 'o be-. ana q f cGmf
from high protection and a direct and pow
erful blow to the whole protective sys-
IF all other classes of men and women
In the United States can submit TO the
taxation there is no reason TO my mind
why the owner OF a net income of over
$4,000 a year should fail to obey. A
man with a large fortune has more need
of protection by law than his impoverished
neighbor; hence. he owes more to the sup
port and enforcement of the law. 1t is pure
and simple equity that he should pay a tax
on his realized wealth in return for the
government care and protection against
Iawlessne4s which he necessarily claims
and which is necessarily bestowed. Why
should such a system be stigmatized as UNI
American. undemocratic? What is there In
our system of government, or in the Demo-
cratic principles on which il is founded.
that exempts the rich from contributing to
It's support according to their means?
Those In poverty have done this, why not
those who have a net surplus OF wealth
at the end of the year? Is justice Manner
lean? Is equality before the law and in
enjoyment Of natural rights undemoeratic?
The first income tax known to history
was Of a higher origin than aught as
signed TO EARTH nor was 1t a feather
weight enactment such as we now propose.
For the support of his own government
among the children of men In the beginning
his whole people-taxed them one-tenth of
their entire possessions nor did statesmen
and lawgivers of the school of Moses.
Aaron and Joshua, and of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob. denounce its principles or
threaten il with criminal violation. From
that high and ancient day to the present
time a TAX on incomes has hpon no novelty
or mere experiment in the history of gov
eminent. Such a tax has always been re-
ing classes, while at the same time inflict-
ing no injustice on those best able to pay
1t, and having the greatest interest in the
stability OF government and the supremacy
Of law.
THE GIFT TO DISTTLLERS.
"But In the effort we made to break down
tariff duties by supplying the government
with revenue from other sources we did
not stop with the income tax. The in
creased taxation Of whisky from 80 cents 10
a dollar and ten cents per gallon was a
favorite measure with all except protection
lists, the Whisky Trus and other holders OF
whisky who wanted to be let alone. Protec-
tionists have never failed. no matter to
which party they belong. TO antagonize the
collection of money for government sup
port by means OF our internal revenue sys-
tenn. They do not want taxes paid on in
comes, on whisky, on beer, on tobacco, on
playing cards and the like. Their system Is
to raise all the revenue the government
needs and TO protect the manufacturing
monopolies IN plundering the people of
illimitable millions besides. by b.ockading
our ports against the trade of the world
by shutting out competition from abroad,
which would cheaper everything TO the
purchaser hereby turning over our home
markets to private, exclusive greed and
by compelling consumers to pay, as the
statistics show. for all articles necessary
to life amongst laboring people, from 20
TO go per cent. more than they are worth,
and more than they could be bought for if
trade was free. Hence. the doctrine of pro-
lection for the rich and oppression for the
poor-the Republican doctrine of protection
which has been so justly denounced as a
robbery and a fraud-always shows It's raw
enOus teeth at the mention of free trade
and fights to the death every step in that
direction.
when it was discovered tina the bill,
which has recently become a law, the Sen
ate bill If you choose to call it so, made
provision for a reduction of over seventy
millions a year duties on imports by plac-
ing a tax on incomes, and an increased
tax on distilled spirits, which together
will more than equal that amount, every
clear-sighted protectionist from Maine to
California knew its fatal meaning TO his
policy Of rapine and injustice. The present
able and very efficient Commissioner of In
ternal Revenue authorizes me to say that
he will collect every dollar coming to the
government under the increased whisky tax
of $.10 a gallon as certainly and as readi-
~ as ne mas heretofore collected the tax or
80 cents a gallon, and that it is a safe esti-
mate, after the first year, that over one
hundred and ten millions will be poured
annually into the treasury from this tax
alone, which touches not one OF the neces-
stiles or natural wants OF human existence.
This is a stupendous fact, impossible to be
overestimated. The income tax and the tax
on distilled spirits have come to stay. They
make lighter every burden of the laboring
mans life; they enable the friends of tariff
reform to secure in their bill, as ii became
n 1-uu N ro1rnrinn nf f0vaC m III ooI
goods, on blankets, shawlS, hats and on
wooden clothing of all kinds of from 40 to
over 100 per cent; a reduction on iron ore,
pig iron, bar iron, tin plate, tinware, chains,
saws and on all the principal implements
and utensils needed by farmers of from 40
to 20 per cent. The truth is. and it cannot
be too often stated, nor made too plain,
that the internal revenue system OF taxa
ton embracing incomes, whisky and dis
titled spirits of all kinds. fermented liquors.
tobacco In Its various forms, playing
cards and other like articles Of wealth and
luxury hereafter to be added. is the sure
forerunner of the downfall of protection
the John the Baptist OF the gospel OF COM
mercial liberty.
"As to the defects and shortcomings of
the new law, which repealed the Mckinley
its practical workings will discuss them
with more wisdom for their future correc-
ton and eradication than they can be dis
cussed now in party heat and bad temper.
1t is we'll known that L would have gone
further on some important points than we
went IN the Dill In the senate, ana that i
struggled hard to do so. / stand with Gro
yer Cleveland on tariff reform, and with
him l believe in the curative processes of
future legislation. Absolute perfection does
not belong to any work of human brains
or human hands. and certainly was never
achieved in mans first effort ON any dis
puted subject.
AVERAGE REDUCTIONS.
But let us see what has actually been
Zone in the interest of taxpaying people.
The average ad valorem rate of duty under
the Mckinley bill was 49.5S: the average
rate proposed by the Mills bill, Endorsed by
the national Democratic convention only
six years ago at st. Louis, was 1913; the
average rate of the Morrison bill, another
Democratic measure, was 41.65, while the
average rate of duty under the new law.
as it now stands. may be stated at 81 per
cent. ad valorem. What have Republicans
to say of this comparison with their odious
law OF four years ago, and what have DEM
ocrats also TO say when they see that the
present Democratic Congress-, in spite of
differences within, and inceSSant assault
from without. has made a heavier average
reduction in tariff duties than was ever be-
fore even proposed in American history?
The average rate of the Wilson bill, as IL
passed the House and came to the Senate,
Senate bill, when / had the honor 10 report
1t on the 10th of March. was down TO 3l.15
the amendments afterward made increas-
ing that low rate less than 8 per cent. A
glance at the free list also discloses most
impOrtant additions there Cotton tics