The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-03-22
WHAT he SAYS.
The HOB. Roger g. Mills on the Tariff
Question

The HOB. Roger Q. Mills on the Tariff
Question.
Herewith is given an article taken
from the pen OF Roger Q. Mills, which
he has addressed 20 the New York
World and which reads as follows
In response to your request for my
reasons for advocating ad valorem
duties IN imposing rates on imported
articles, give you this hGsty note.
There are two opposing policies
about tariffs. One is that the prlncl-
pal object of the duty should be TO
protect the domestic product against
foreign competition. The other Is
that the duty should be laid for reye'
nue. and for that alone. Those who
have advocated the protection theory
have chung with tenacity to the SPECIFIC
duty, or the duty on quantity, as
yards, pounds, tons, dozens, or other.
The friends of the revenue policy have
chung to the rate of values, or ad val
orem, as it is called. The ad valorem
system informs every citizen OF the
amount of tax imposed on each artl-
Gle. The specific system conceals II.
Horses may be taxed $50 per head. II
the horse were worth $40 1t would be
800 per cent and an unreasonable tax,
which would bring no revenue be-
cause such horses could not be i'm
ported, but it would protect the do
nestle raiser of such stock. We have
that tax now under existing law and 1t
excludes all COW ponies, and the gov
eminent loses the revenue it would
get with g revenue duty. The tax on
the quantity-the specific article
conceals from the people the fact that
it is 300 per cent on the value.
These instances might be extended
indefinitely. will give one more in
stance. Pearl buttons are taxed 2 1-2
cents per line. Who knows what the
tax is on this little necessary of life by
this description? 1t is on all the
clothing of all the children of the poor.
The specific duty is over 143 per cent.
Who would have had the effronety to
have written down in the tariff law a
duty of 143 per cent on pearl hnttons!
Protectionists cling to the specific
duty because it is the most efficient
instrument of exorbitant taxation,
and for the same reason Democrats
oppose it.
Again, it discriminates against The
poor by charging higher rates on
cheap articles that the poorer people
must buy. A duty of 90 cents on a
yard of cloth worth 81 will be 80 per
cent; on the cloth worth 80 cents pei
yard it would be 100 per cent, and on
yard of cloth worth 20 cents it would
be 200 per cent. 1t is, therefore, an
unequal and an unjust tax. This dis
elimination runs through the whole
system from top to bottom.
Again, if the specific quantities had
the same value at the time of impOs
ing the duty the tax burden grows
heavier as the years roll on. because
the invention of machinery that null
tiplies production and lowers it's cost,
which is going steadily on, is increasing
the tax all the while. A tax of % cents
on a yard of cloth that costs today 81
would be % per cent. If the cloth falls
to 80 cents per yard the tax rises to so
per cent, and if the clotu falls to %
cents per yard the duty rises to 1OC
per cent. Prices have been falling for
go years, and to considerable extent
within the last 80 years, and nothing
is better understood among projections
lists than that falling prices make ris-
ing duties for the benefit of the 60
nestle producer.
Every one understands the ad
vaiorem rate. All the taxes in all the
states, counties, and cities are ad
valorem. All the commercial business
of the world is carried on by value
Every purchase and sale of goods is by
value, and it is the merest trifling
with the common sense of the
people who say that duties cannot be-
honestly collected when imposed by
ad valorem rates. In 1916, when the
Democratic party struck boldly ou
for tariff reform President Polk urgeC
ad valorem duties Oh congress. Score
tary Robert j. Walker pressed upol
congress the Importance of abandon
ing specific duties and making tarif
for revenue with ad valorem duties
The great tariff of 1916 had not ont
specific duty in all its schedules. |
brought such an excess of revenues tt
the treasury that in 1857 another tarii
had to be made, still further reducing
duties, and that, like the tariff of 1916
was exclusively ad valorem.
There have alwoys been some Dem
ocrats who advocated specific duties
but they are proteetionists The,
were guarding the interests of certain
classes, not the interests of the masses
The Democratic T1a ses today are 70
ad valorem duties, and to abandon
that policy is to abandon the fight.
4-a-N
Take'the children to the Palace al