Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1895-09-04
SOME CAUSES OF HARD TIMES
Unjust and Unequal Taxation the Chief

extract the following
Don't let us be afraid of liberty,
lawful liberty. Be sure that if the ne
cessities of the Treasury would permit
us to have absolute free trade, that
great extension of liberty would quick
| IL make us the greatest, the most pros
gerous, the most contented and happy
people on the earth. Let us come as
near as we can to it. Whatever is good
| in the Wilson tariff is free-as free WOOL
which is going to give the American
wool and wOollen industries much de-
sired revival of life and prosperity, as
you will presently see.
Do not forget, but fix it in your mind,
| whether you are 4 prOtectiOnist or
low tariff man OR a free trader, that a
tariff duty is a tax, and all taxes are alb
stracted from the earnings of industri-
Gus men and leave them poorer. If we
had no taxes at all to pay, we should
retain, for our own enjoyment and that
of our wives and children, all we earn,
| which would be Il very comfortable
thing. Taxation was very low in this
country before the war, and in those
happy days, when tariff taxes were also
| low, this was known the world over as
1.-The paradise of workingmen.'
We ought to pay taxes for the sup
port of the govel economically
administered" That is the duty OF
every citizen.
But the popularity of what is called
a "protective tariff tax" like the Nc
Kinley law-the express and uncOnceal
ed object of such a LAWS to so lay the
customs duties or tariff taxes that we,
the people, shall not only pay tax to
j the government, but entirely aside
from that, pay another indirect con-
| tribution to some one else-tO private
persons, engaged in various specially
favored industries.
PROJECTIONS PLEA.
This is not denied by those who favor
'protective tariffs They justify PRO
tection," as they call it, on the plea
that by this method of taxation they
desire to maintain high standard of
| wages and living among the wage work
ers of the protected industries" This
is, as they openly assert, their main OBJ
ject in prote ctionist legislation, and
therefore Mr.. Mckinley, who is one of
the foremost of the protectionists, and
one of the most clear headed and intel
lectually honest of them, demands, in
his own words often repeated, "a tariff
for protection, with Incidental reve-
nue."
That means, as you see, friend Henry,
a demand that we shall all pay a tax,
first to private persons, but SO adjusted
that incidentally it shall also bring
some revenue into the public treasury.
But the first and main object of such
tax levy, as Mr.. Mckinley honestly says,
is, to use the common phrase, ito foster
American industries" and to do this by
keeping out of our markets, SO far as
possible, the products of other nations,
by placing heavy fine or penalty, the
duty namely, on their importation,
and thus creating an artificial scarcity
of these articles in our own country.
That high duties have this effect is
proved, first, by the fact that such high
duties smuggling seis in and flourishes,
which it would not il prices here were
not made by the protective tariff duties
so much higher than abroad that SNUG
Cling, which is law breaking and haz-
ardous, pays Secondly, it is proved
by the notorious fact that rich people,
WHO can afford to go to Europe, take
care to buy their clothing and many
other articles there, and come home
with many trunks full, whe:e they took
out scarcely anything. They can buy
much cheaper abroad, and so could you
and | and all wage workers, if we had
time and money TO go off on a European
jaunt.
Now a system of taxation such as
Mr.. Mckinley and those with him re-
Qnlre, and as we have had for more
than thirty years, a tariff for protec
ton, with incidental revenue" being
designed to make everything dearer in
this country than in Others, necessarily
makes us all pay more. Things of all
kinds would he cheaper and therefore
| si1U tai hlo Inv
ers if there were no such protective
tariff taxes. 1t creates therefore an
artificial dearness, and this is why l
said just now that it works a slow and
insidiOus impoverishment OF the peo-
pie. For if the things you must use
are made dearer you cannot buy so
much of them, or you must spend more
of your earnings to buy them.
Careful calculations have proved that
| under the tariff before that OF Mr. Nc
kinley the loss to the consuners-that
is to say, to the great body of our PEG
Pile. the wage workers and farmers, by
the higher prices they were obliged to
pay under it was not less than S400, OO0,-
900 per year This, entirely aside from
the amount which this duty or tax
brought into the federal Treasury.
| LOSS TO CONSUMERS.
| That is to say, under tariff for
| revenue niy"-provided it was fairly
and scientifically laid, and not q mere
| hodge podge and lnakeshift like the so
called Wilson Brice German tariff-the
consumers-the people-of this country
would be somewhere between four and
five hundred million dollars a year
richer every year than under McKin
| ley "protectIve' tariff. That would
leave something in all our pockets.
But there is another and special fea-
ture about all protective tariffs which
deserves your attention. The men who
make these protective tariffs-for the
protection" or benefit of workingmen,
they assert-always put the highest
duties on the common goods worn and
used by the mass Of wage workers and
farmers, and considerably lower duties
on the fine things worn, used or con-
sumed by the rich. For instance, the
finer kinds of blankets were burdened
under all our protective tariffs with
lower duty than the commoner kinds,
and the same was true of cloths, of wo-
meu's dress goods and many other
| things. That is to say, the tariff franz
| ed by the prOtectionists laid heavier
and in some cases much heavier bur-
| den on the mass of the people than ON
| the rich.
This will seem to you a monstrous
| and unrighteous discrimination in the
laws against the poorer parts of the
nation and in favor of the rich, against
the mass and in favor of the few, and
so it is. The protective" theory JUS
titles it, however, on the ground that
the 'home market for the cheaper
kinds of goods of all kinds is immense
| ly greater than that for the finer and
more costly kinds, because the cheaper
kinds are bought and used by the great
mass of the people, the finer only by
the fewer rich, and that as the control |
of the home market is the object of
protective tariffs it is necessary under
| that system to lay heavier duties or
taxes on articles in common use and by |
| the poorer people than on those used
| only by the rich.
Thus it comes about that to carry out
the protectionist system of taxation it |
| is necessary to lay considerably heavier