Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-10-10
The Vice President Discusses Tariff
Legislation.
DEFENDS TIE Law LATELY PASSED
Much Preferred the Original VIII
son Bill.
AS TO THE SUGAR TRUST

1ellOW cltlZenS mere To-Day on tne pouucdi
Issues. The greater part of his address was
devoted to the tariff.
Vice President StevensOn's Speech.
Vice President Stevenson said, in review
ing the tariff legislation of the recent ses-
sion of Congress:
1.-The democratic Congress has increased
the tax from ninety cents to one dollar and
ten cents per gallon on distilled spirits.
This will increase government revenues an
nually twenty millions of dollars. Do you,
in the interest of the whisky trust, desire
this law repealed? The democratic Congress
has placed a tax on playing cards, which, as
you know, were untaXed under the Mckin-
ley law. This will bring to the treasury
three million dollars per annum. Do you
wish this provision of the new law repealed
and the old law restored? If so, your path
way of duty is clear. Vote to return to
Congress the republican lawmakers who
opposed the tariff upon PLAYING cards and
the increased tax upon whisky.
But again. what has this democratic Con-
gress accomplished? You will bear in mind
that the observation-disclosures" con-
trolled by the republicans. created more
than twelve hundred new federal offices at a
total annual cost to the people of more than
two million dollars. The present democratic
Congress. by a series of wise and well-con-
sidered enactments. greatly simplified and
improved administrative methods in the sew
eral departments of the government by
means Of which n ore than six hundred use
less federal offices have been abolished and
governmental expenses thereby lessened an
nually to the extent of near one million dol
lars.
lone section of the democratic tariff bill
just enacted provides for the payment of an
income tax. Individual incomes of less than
four thousand dollars are wholly exempt
from the tax. Savings banks and building
and loan associations are exempt from this
tax. This wise exemption is in the interest
of small investors and depositors. Upon
other corporations and upon individual in
comes exceeding that amount, a tax of 2
per cent il to be collected. AS this feature
Of the bill has encountered fierce hostility
both from republican legislators end press.
1t is well to give it consideration. Two
questions ct once arise: Is this just en-
actment? Was ii necessary? Its enactment
became necessity because of the bankrupt
condition In which the passage of the Nc
kinley law and the extravaganza of the re-
publican Congress had plunged the country.
Its enactment was the logical result of the
vicious republican legislation that had
brought a deficit instead of a surplus to the
treasury.
THE duty of the democratic Congress
when 1t came into power, to provide the
necessary revenues with which to meet the
current expenses of the government, was
imperative. How could this be done? Eth
er by continuing or possibly increasing to
the people the cost of the necessaries of
life by tariff taxation. or by imposing
moderate tax upon the earnings of the
wealth of the country. The democratic
party was sOlemnly pledged to the reduc
ton OF taxation upon the neceSSarieS of
life. This pledge could be made good, and
sufficient governmental revenues at the
same time secured, only by the imposition
of the tax l have indicated. Just in pro-
portion as the burdens of taxation were
removed from the shoulders of the poor
they were to rest upon those more able to
bear them. A democratic Congress removed
the tax wholly from salt from lumber, from
binding Irvine. from agricultural imple-
ments, and greatly reduced the tax upon
cotton and wooden goods. and other articles
OF daily use. How was this to be made
good to the treasury? A democratic Con-
gress thought II wise to do so by a tax upon
annua! incomes exceeding $4,000. This en-
actment was to remain in force only for the
period of five years.
The New Tariff.
Il now ask your attention to a considera-
ton of other sections of the tariff bill which
has passed both the House and the Senate
and is now the law'of the land. / state to
You in all candor that 1t is not all that
desired. There never was a moment that I
would not gladly have given the casting
vote In the Senate in favor of the tariff
bill as 1t passed the House of Representa-
yves. From the beginning 1 have been a
lrm believer in the doctrine of free raw
material. But ii must not be forgotten.
that while the House of Representatives
contained democratic majority of near
one hundred, our majority was but one i'm
the Senate In fact, with every state fully
represented i'm that body. there would prob
ably nave been no democratic majority at
all. The Senate contained but forty four
democrats, and with the republican Senator'S
voting sOlidly against the bill at every
stage, Il can easily be seen that In a body
SO nearly balanced. tariff reform had no
easy battle to fight. At one critical mo-
ment of the struggle, the bill was only
saved by the casting vote of the presiding
officer Of the Senate"
Mr.. Stevenson mentioned as benefits Of
a. rtGc IL
bounty. which he denounces as '.odious
class legislation the placing of over one
hundred articles highly taxed under the
Mckinley law. on the free list; the freeing
from duty of wool, salt, lumber and agricul-
tEral implements. A tax on raw sugar was
made necessary by the expenses of the gov
eminent. Regarding this duty he said:
The Sugar Trust.
"You have heard much of the sugar
trust and of the benefits it will derive
under the new law. am free to say that
could my vote have controlled. 1t would
have received none of the benefits against
which complaint has been made. 1 favored
the bill it passed the democratic House.
placing sugar of all grades upon the free
list But, Objectionable as some features
of the sugar schedule are, il must not be
forgotten that they are great improve
ment upon the Mckinley law. How? The
sugar trust sprang into existence under
the Mckinley law--was, in fact, a necessary
outgrowth of that law. The Mckinley law
admitted raw sugars free of duty. This
was in the interest of the refiners-in other
words, of the sugar trust. Was this i'm the
interest of the people? OF the consumer?
Not at ALL 1t was solely in the interest of
the refiner, for the reason that the free
sugar of which you have heard so much
was wholly unfit for domestic USE 1t was
the raw material that passed first into the
hands of the refiners--of the trusts 1t
was not the sugar used upon your tables
Before 1t reached your table the refiner
had added to it's cost to the consumer ex-
actly the tariff that another clause of the
Mckinley law had provided How? Upon
the sugar used at your homes in cooking
and upon the table, the tariff tax was
placed at 80 cents upon every hundred
pounds. This provision, coupled with that
allowing free raw sugar to the refiner, gave
the trust opportunities for gain hitherto
without parallel in legislation. Its profits
have been enormous. Under it's concessions
granted by the Mckinley law, it has become
the gigantic monopoly of the age. You can
not be too often reminded that all of the
trusts and nonopolies that are now the
bane of this land are the offspring of re-
publican high tariff enactments. If IL had
been the intention under the Mckinley law
to give free sugar to the people, why a tax
of 1-2 cent per pound on that ready for
domestic use? Why not. as In the bill which
has just passed the democratic House. ad-
nit all sugars free?