The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-01-06
AN HosEsr TAKlYF.

Inc. honest constitutions tariff for rsve-
rue onIy7 This question 10 answered BY
the yex York SAN fDem-) a. follows:
7. Re IL enacted tA.t on every article I'm
ported into the United States from any
foreign country, there shall be leSied az
import duty Of .hirty-Eve per cent al
vgioren.
II. There shall be no exception TO this
rate Of duty, bat il shall be Iesled and COZ
seete3 in the case Of every article imported.
saving only the goods Of foreign ministers
accredited TO the United states
Ill. Whenever ~ the end OF any 1seai
year the aggregate revenues derived from
import duties shalt exeeed by so. p1ss0v TIE
necessities Of the government. when non-
estIy and economically administered. fhe
president shall be authorized 10 issue
proclamation reducing the rate OF import
duty on aB articles thereafter imported
from thiriy-6ve per cent. to thirty per
cent al yaIoren.
A tariff for revenue only Is simply the
opposite Of tariff for protection. The
tariff demanded By the Chicago platform
must be one which shall not contain any
feature. whsthsr q duty or remission OF
duty, that IL designed 30 protect any in
6astry. or 10 favor any interest or any sec
ton at the expense Of others. Itmust bear
equally upon aIl the people taxed and
upon all interests. and under IL, therefore.
IL is necessary that everything be taxed
alike. The sun Is logical and consistent
with the demand OF the Chicago platform
when it proposes that the same ad vaiorem
import be enacted upon oil imported
goods. A tariff for revenue only does not
81 IF g. tfss e. FL. sfsa
Chicago platform condemned and rejected
protection the free liss was logically re-
jected and prescribed along with It.
A tariff for revenue only has no relation
70 free trade. for IL imposes duties upon
foreign imports. which is the reverse OF
free trade. The Chicago platform. in its
demand for q tariff for revenue only, logic
ally demands duties on tea. coffee and
sugar, which are free under our protective
system. The only true free trade Is that
which prevails between the states of this
Union. A tariff for revenue only, which
the Chicago platform promises, does not
allow of a free list, whether for crude ma
terisls or anything else. The Sun and the
Cincinnati Eaquirer, DEM. both insist
tina, the Wilson tariff bill does not give
the people tariff for revenue only: that
II Is q sort OF protective tariff. far inferior
TO the Mckinley Law. because the McKin-
ley las is more rational, systematic and
just TO ali interests. Under the
Mckinley law raw materials not
mined, grown or produced here
come in free. while articles susceptible of
home production or Of American manu-
facturs are taxed. Under the protection
list theory We admit, duty free. coffee,
sugar, molasses, hides and skins. raw silk,
certain drugs and chemicals. tea and In
dia rubber. These free imports are from
countries where manufactures are imper-
fectiy developed or impossible of rain
tenance. Under the reciprocity clause of
the Mckinley act We obtained reciprocal
trade advantages by treaty from Brazil,
Spain. Germany and the West India isl
ands. The ''free list" under protection,
stood for commodities which, not being
susceptible OF production in sufficient
amount, are un;axed to the consumer.
while under our reciprocity policy We OBJ
tanned valuable trsde concessions from
those countries whose non-competitiys
products we placed on our free list.
Under the Mckinley act protection IL
logically developed into an orderly and
consistent system. The Mckinley act
does not rob the American iron miner or
wool grower for the sake of giving addi-
tionai protection to the iron or wool man
ufacturer. The Mckinley act gives pro-
lection all around to both producer of raw
materials and the manufacturer of finished
goods. and while IL consistently protects
both the producer aud manufacturer OF
our home market in its competitive indus
tries, il with equal consistency places
non.competitiye industries on the free
list. since TO tax non-competitive indus
tries would be direct tar on the con-
sumner, With no advantage to the life of
American industries or the wages of Amer.
lean labor.
II this system of logical and consistent
protection is not wanted by the American
people the only logical and consistent
substitute IL tariff for revenue only
under which horizontal imrost. like that
proposed by the Sus, would be imposed on
all imports. Under this genuine tariff for
revenue only there would of course lie no
free wool. iron ore. coal or lumber; there
would be no free sugar. silk, coffee. chem
ieais, tea, paper stock and India rubber
neither in competitive or non-compesitive
industries would there be any such thing
as free imports under a tariff for revenue
| only. Now the Wilson bill is fraud. q
demagog!e evasion and violation Of the
Chicago platforms pledge of tariff for
revenue only. TIE Cincinnati Easxige-
| (Dem.) fairly asks:
| Can u he tarff for revenue only when
| IL fails to raise the necessary reyenue7 Is
| II iair revenue reform bali that fails "a
| tax chose things FROM Whlch revenue NAV
| be most legitimstely derivedg Does iari1
| reform simply mean = reduction Of duties
/ even when we need every cent now com.
! iag In IN keep the wheels Of government,
| mevlngf
: An honest tariff for revenue oaly bill
would provide ths revenue necessary fo,
the government by equal and uniform
taxation Of al imports. bat the Wusoa
tsFiG bja dlsegiminates between indus
tries in the measure Of its taxation. and
| sacrifices revenue for the express purpose
| Of AaoTi'ug protection. The revenue il
| provides Is less than the needs OF the gov
| eminent by xZacoo Goa 1t Is really pro-
| seelgye measure when IL robs the so-callesl
| TaS materials 1t all protection and
/ continues pFOtsEftAn II hnE8hsd *oaAs