The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-06-07

tional law, when he attempts to tWlst
il 10 mean that one class OF people can
under it be taxed to support an indus
try undertaken by another Glass;
Without quoting numerous author
tiles that differ with Senator Sher-
man, We are content to quote para
graph from this self-same speech.
Speaking upon the subject of the in
come tax, he says: "If you can 4egls-
late for classes in this country, then
our system will break down oil lts
own weight. All men are alike un"
der the law" Thus out OF his own
mouth does he answer his construc-
ton of the constitution that govern
ment can lay tax on one class OF cit
liens to support the industry OF an
other class of citizens, or in other
words, that the government cal tax
the farmer or mechanic indirectly
through custom tariff to ald the
manufacturer in competing with the
foreign manufacturer.
Senator Sherman would have US be-
lieve that the general welfare OF the
United States" in the clause OF the
constitution, meant that the governs
ment should aid any industry that
WAS not able to take care of itself IN
the competition of trade in the mar
kets of the world. The general wei"
fare Of the United States does not
mean the general welfare OF certain
class of business men doing
business in the United Staets.
The manufacturer for whom
he wants this aid may not be
naturaIized citizen of the United
States, may not be an actual resident
of the United States, which Is often
the case, but the senator strains the
clause to cover not O certain class,
which it afterwards suits him to say
cannot be taxed, but even foreigners
who have invested capital in manu-
features in the United States.
There 10 another rather significant
and inconsistent feature in Senator
Sherman's speech. AS long as the
tariff extends protection to coal, iron
and articles of Northern industry and
manufacture Mr.. Sherman is theil
champion, but when it comes to the
protection of sugar, q Southern In
dustry, the senator ia quick to oppose
it and give from his experience as
former secretary of the treasury the
opportunities for fraud against the
government afforded by the sugar
schedule. The moment the protec-
ton is attempted to be extended to a
Southern industry he shreWdly
and perhaps truly exposes the trick
cry oft, "the darkey in the woodpile"
"a ne is pleased to term it. There may
be trickery in it. 1t would be hard to
levy protective tariff without its
being tainted with trickery, but, sem
ator, why can't you give US the bene'
fit of your shrewdness in exposing the
trickery of the whole abOminable sys-
tenn of taxing one class of business
men for the benefit of another class OF
business men? In his opposition to
the income tax Senator sherman
answers his whole argument as to the
constitutionalty of protective tariff
in the following words, to-wit: "If
you can legislate for classes in this
country, then our system will break
down of its own weight. All men are
alike under the law" Very true, the
protective tariff system has from year
to year been growing more grievous
in its burdens, and finally in 1894
broke down of its own eight, but we
are compelled mutely to endure the
reproOf Mr.. Sherman gives to the
Democratic party on account of their
inability to introduce the other sys-
tenn as set forth in the Democratic
national platform, tariff for revenue
taxing all alike. With shane we
plead guilty to the charge of not
keeping the promises made by the
party to the people to release them
of tho onerous burden of the Mckinley
tariff, but our failure in that respect
has been on account Of the inpedi
ments of senatorial courtesy, placed
in the way by Republican senators
and by reason of certain leaders in
high places betray and opposing the
policy Of the National Democratic adj
ministration and the advocates of a
reform tariff.