The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1894-05-01

OF labor from skin to core and from
core back to skin again." and he asked
why, in the name of the poor, dis
tressed people Of the country, only 6
small part of the duty on manufactured
articles went to the laborers. Why
paid to the laborer for producing q ton
of steel rails, while the tariff was 3d.
A. AS to the reduction of prices on
all articles which prOtectiOniSts as
cribed to the tariff, Mills asked why IL
was if the tariff reduced prices in the
United States, free trade reduced
them in atxBritain, and he asserted
that prices had been brought down
| everywhere by improved methods OF
production, by machinery, by inven-
tions.
Adam Smith, he said, had stuck
pins in the protectionist theory in
Great Britain and the common school
in this country was sticking pins in it
in it until it was dead in this country
as it was dead in Great Britain. AT
first the theory Of protection was the
encouragement of infant manufac-
tories, but that the ground was
shifted and the tariff was said to be
for the protection of American work
men against the pauper labor of
Europe. He asserted, however, that
the American wbrkmen could only be
protected by finding constant employ
mont; and he could only find constant
employment when his products were
sold at their lowest possible cost. And
their cost could only be low when
taxes were removed from all the ma
terials OF manufacture, SO that his pro-
ducts could go into all the markets of
the world.
"Emancipate our people," Mr..
Mills exclaimed. "Give them q
chance to show their skill, their
genius. Give them their natural and
heavcn-born rights. Give them back
the ocean and then the workmen will
not be coming to Washington to i'm
plore the government to do something
for them. Their remedy is to go
home, go to the ballot box and sweep
out of existence the party which dares
to pile taxation upon them, and
destroy their chance of getting "
market for the sale of their goods.
The ballot box is their place, not
Washington"
Coming to the question of the in
come tax, Mills asked why should not
wealth be taxed. OF all the rights,
he said, that depended for protection
upon associated power property was
the most dependent The poor man
required little from the government :;
and why should he be prosecuted to
death with taxation on everything
that was necessary for his existence
When people were associated to-
gcther in governmental it was fair
and just government-ever citizen
should contribute his proper share to-
ward its support; and his proper
Oh - h. l14n 4 l.
amount which he had to be protected
government. He quoted from Adam
Smith as laying down the principle
that the subjects of every State
ought to contribute towards the sup
sport of the government as nearly as
possible in proportion to their re-
spective abilities-that 's, in proper
tion to the revenue which they re-
spectively enjoy under the protection
of the State" And he added that the
American people intended that that
should be done.
He declared that he was no COM
'mmunist, no anarchist, and that there
was no difference in his mind between
the millionaire and the poor man as to
of the government. If necessary he
would exhaust all the resources of tho
government to protect the millionaire
in all his rights. He would call to
arms every able-bodied man from the
Pacific to the Atlantic, in order to
protect the millionaire and the poor
man alike. His motto was Equal
rights to all, and exclusive privileges
to none"
On what sort of principle, he asked,
did the owners of wealth insist that
they should not be taxed? He re-
called the fact that some years ago,
when. the State of Pennsylvania was
unable to protect railroad property at
Pittsburg, Federal troops had to be
sent there; and he added that that
tributed one cent to the Federal gov
ernment.
The income tax had been denounced
to the Senate by the Senator from
New York (Mr. HilU as socialistic,
anarchistic, and sectional; but when
the poor laborer had to pay 98i per
cent. duty on the shirt he.wore, that
tax was not so denounced. All taxes,
he repeated, should be assessed in pro-
portion to the ability of the taxpayer
to pay, and in proportion to the pro-
perty which ho had to be protected.
He had never heard that the Senator
from New York, when he was Cover
nor of that State, had called on the
Legislature to repeal the income tax
there and if such a tax was fair one
for the State of New York, why was it
not also fair one for the United
States. 1t was useless, he exclaimed,
to denOuncc the income tax as odious,
useless to make sophistical arguments
ri0ht n