The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-08-31
THE TIMES TARIFF POSITION.
The Times is in receipt of the following
letter.
South Boston. Va, Aug. y. 1891.

letter:
South Boston. Va, Aug. *. 1891.
Editor Times. Your taritt views seem
to antagOnize the Wilson bill, the Senate
bill and the views of President Cleveland.
Please let a subscriber know If your plan
Is 10 have a uniform ad valorem tax on
all imports, so far as is necessary iof
revenue? Yours truly,
/. V. BROOKES.
First. The Senate bill was framed by
the protected interests-the trusts and the
monopolies-and we opposed 1t for the
reason that II was openly and tlagrantly
a protective tariff bill of the Mckinley
bill order. Public opinion had been so
emphatically expressed at the election OF
1892 against the principles of protection
that the protected interests felt con-
strained-terrifed is the better word--to
make some concessions to it. They there
fore permitted their senators Gor they
have debauched many State legislatures,
and therefore own number of senatOrs)
TO suffer general reduction of duties by
which the Senate bill came to be con-
siderable Improvement on the Mckinley
bill. But many of It's duties are still
high enough TO be practically prohlbitive,
and 1t is therefore not such a bill as the
people expected. or such an one as they
ere entitled 20 have and Will have sooner
or later. The contest must be kept up
until we do get a genuine tarff-reform
bill The corrupt. monopolist-bought SEN
ators must be turned out and honest men
sent 10 the Senate in their places. and
then we will get genuine relief from the
exactions demanded of us by trusts and
monopolies.
Second. We objected to the Wilson bin
because IT was founded upon the idea OF
free raw materials" This is nothing but
another form of protection. 1t says to
one person. you may import what your
business requires without paying any
taxes upon your tmportations." while it
says TO another person. you must pay
taxes upon all that you import" This is
favor.tlsm. which is the odious element
OF McKinleyism, and is therefore in no
respect different. as far as principle IS
concerned, from the Mckinley bill. II is
directly opposed to the fundamental idea
Of Democracy. that the laws shall bear
equally upon all and secure special priv
Ieges TO none, ana II is our purpose 10
shine and In storm. I'm spite OF solicita-
tons on the grounds of self interest anG
In defiance of threats II We do.
Third. We object TO MIR Cleveland's
views for the same reasons. The Wilson
bill embodies his views, and in stating
our objections TO II we state our objec-
tons 10 his views.
Fourth The Times would be glad 10 see
al. customs duties abolished that We
might have perfectly free trade with all
tthe world Then men could buy where
they please and sell where they please,
and each man could prosper according to
the gifts that God has bestowed upon him.
We recognize the fact. however, that the
vicious system OF taxing imports has been
imposed upon us. and that we can never
rid ourselves of 1t so long as we are
compelled TO raise the enormous revenue
that the Government tow requires. Very
well then. II we must tax imports, The
Times says let those taxes be so i'm
posed that all imports shall pay their fan
ratable eproportion OF the tax. Let us
have no favoritisms.
Fifth. We therefore answer our cor.
respondent yes. We would have a uni
form ad valorem tax on all imports, sc
far as is necessary to raise the revenue
that the Government requires, and MOI
one lent beyond. That is the true Demo
cratic doctrine. and that is The Times
doctrine.