The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-29

financial exegencies OF actlla1 var 80 ~,
imposing internal taxes have always been
5ISPedleo as rapidly as such exegencies
disappeared, and have never before been
seriously proposed IN times of profound
49, - some OF tne same Democratic lead
ers VINO, during and subsequent TO the
war, stood In Congress speaking and vot-
ing against internal taxes and an income
TAX. are round to-day heartily favoring
them. They were unwilling TO adopt these
methods or taxation when Ii was necessary
70 preserve the government and the flag,
put tney are willing to adopt them now as
q means OF breaking down tbs patriotic
principle OF protection UNDER which the
Nortn ana Northwest, as well as the South,
mas enjoyed such unparalleled prosperity
ment-
1t would be interesting to the student of
pohtlcal history to examine the various
acts and resolves Of Congress touching in
ternai taxes. beginning I'm 1861 and includ-
ing the years during and shortly after the
war. and TO note the position of the lead
erS of the Democratic party thereon. L
nave time 70 refer 10 but one such law
the internal revenue act which was APP
proved by President Lincoln, July 1, 1864
II passed the House April 28 the vote being.
yeas. 10; nays, 80; every Democrat present
and voting responding in the negative. CThe
Governor here gave the names Of some of
the Democrats who then condemned internal
were Daniel w. voorhees,, John Low and
James T. Mcdowell, Of Indiana. Thomas
A Hendricks voted against the measure In
the Senate.) The system has been con-
demned by all the Democratic Presidents
except Mr.. Cleveland, and has been re-
peatedly characterized by Democratic plat
forms ''as uncomfortable in IT'S offensive ex-
actions" Such taxes have been constantly
denounced as war taxes and Democratic
platforms have loudly and DANGEROUSLY de-
manded their repeal. Yet thirty years after
the close of the war. in a time OF peace,
they row propose to re-enact, In part this
OdiOuS system of Internal revenue taxa
tion which James Madison and other IL
lustrious statesmen pronounced to be most
grievous and un-American, and only to be
<ffaf cd IN IA M a national
RECIPROCITY.
To my mind another hurtful provision Of
the Wilson bill, entirely unwarranted by
experience and unjustifiaDle as matter Of
wise international policy, Is that which re-
peals Section 3. of the act Of 1890. commonly
known as the reciprocity clause. This, 1t
will be remembered. was enacted to secure
reciprocal trade between the United States
and countries largely producing sugar. mo-
lasses, coffee, tea and hides, and under
which this country has opened up foreign
trade profitable TO the people ana or the
most promising proportions; 90 -ao,,>-
Commercial agreements relating 10 reclp-
rocal trade have already been made with
the following countries: Brazil the Domini-
Rico. Guatemala, Salvador. the German em>
pire Great Britain. for certain west lndlan
colonies and British Guiana: Nicaragua s1
Honduras and Austro-Hungary In these
arrangements II has been the ann Oh the
government to secure enlarged markets Tor
the products OF agriculture, which, added
fo their splendid home market would per-
manently secure them from the occasional
depressions which visit our agriculturlsts
because of their surplus products.
AS the result of these commercial arrange
rnents and for the most part due TO them,
our trade has shown gratifying increase;
The domestic exports to Germany and
Arstro- Hungary had increased in value up
10 December, 1892, from S47,0OO.OOO TO $oIVOO,-
UOO or more than p per cent. With Amer,
ri he
increased up to that date from S44,Vo0.UO0
to S540O0,O00, or upwards or q per cent. Inc
countries with which reciprocal arrange
InentS have been made had been so, 1881,
which sum is chiefly from wheat, flour,
meat and dairy products, from lumber and
the manufactures Of iron and steel. Our
imports with these countries have increased
cles which we do not ourselves produce,
like sugar, coffee, India rubber and crude
drugs.
exported to- Cuba 1900 barrels of flour.
During the first half of the year 1892, under
the reciprocity os clause a we exPorted to the
ending Aug. 81, 1891, our total exports to
Cuba were $11, 900. coo. For the correspond
exports were sls,7OO,OO0, under law not
yet two years i'm operation. OF this great
Increase nearly 100000 were in flour.
about 100000 were in bacon, pork and
other provisions and a large proportion of
the remaining exports were also agricultur-
al products. And yet the Democratic lead
ers in Congress seriously propose to shut
the door OF this splendid opportunity in the
face Of the American farmer.
l am not here TO discuss tariff rates or
schedules These are subject to change up
or down, as new conditions require it; but
my insistence is that these changes must
pie, and within that principle rates may
be, should be and will be amended as time,
new processes of manufacture and changed
commercial conditions require; but they
must not fall below a rate which will ade-
quateiy measure the difference between the
American scale of wages and that of COM
peting countries and must always be in
favor of the labor of our own country and
the home market for our people. The prin-
subject to amendment The tariff policy of
this country must be protective. Thai Is
what we contend for-that is what the
American people mean to have.
THE PRETEXT FOR THE BILL.
The pretext for the proposed bill is not
10 raise more revenue The declaration of
it's author and the House committee is that
IL will redU ce the revenue. Tie same effort
at tariff reduction has been repeatedly made
in the past when had surplus revenue
in the treasury. The present law was ade-
quate to meet all the expenses Of the gov
eminent, and did meet them for the first
two and a half years of it's operation Dur
ing no year Of President Harrison's admin
istration did the receipts fall below the ex-
penSes OF the government, and when Pres
fdent Harrison went out of power while his
administration had paid Oft more than $685.
100000 of the principal and interest of the
national debt, yet he turned over to the ad-
ministration which succeeded him a surplus
OF upward OF $l24OO0.0O0. including the re-
serve fund, which, under the Republican
policy, had never been encroached upon
If there is net enough revenue now 1t is
because the proposed change of policy has
had the effect of diminishing it. The pro-
posed policy has not only disturbed domes-
tic trade. but the import trade. The rea-
son the revenues are less under the pres
ent administration is because importations
are less, and the inportations are less be-
cause our people buy less foreign goods
Just as they are now buying less of do
nestle goods also, owing to their pecuniary
distress, and all this is because their in
comes and wages have been either cut off
or greatly reduced.
You cannot have large impOrtationS per-
manently unless the people are prosperous,
and the more prosperous they are the
larger the iTnpOrtations. When home pros
perity Is retarded impOrtations are checked
and revenues diminish; hence the strictly
revenue tariff can never be depended upon
in an emergency. Importations are reduced
by the fact that the party in power is
pledged to decrease the duties. Those who
otherwise would import goods are infiu-
enced not to do so now because the pres
ent administration Is committed to the
policy of lowering the duties from a pro-
tective to a revenue basis Merchants Will
not import goods at a sixty-per-cent. rate
when the government is pledged to a thirty
percent. rate, nor can home manufacture
ers produce with safety under such condi-
lions. Importers viii wait for the lower
duties, and while so waiting importatlonS
will necessarily decline. they are now
declining with the inevitable result, which
81 IA.