Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1896-10-12

limitless waste by pitiless taxation.
And If for any reason it becomes
desirable to provide for more revenue
it can be and it should be raised by
taxes on wealth, or by tariff or excise
upon articles comparatively those of
luxury, rather than by increased tax
nlion upon wool and sugar. For these
are the two articles which-the one in
clothing aud the Other in food-have
become at once the leading ones of
all those consumed by our people, end
those as to which the poor and the
rich are most nearly on par as to per
capita consumption and upon which,
therefore, any tax is ideally vicious
MS az adjustment of burdens in pro-
portion to want rather than wealth.
Even were Mr.. Mckinley correct in
his charge that the Wilson act is IN
adequate for revenue purposes, his
proposal now to increase taxation
would be none the less absurd when
the Treasury. At the beginning of
this fiscal year it contained of free cash
some S270,000,000, that is to sGy,
6170, 1000, 900 in addition to the $780,
900, 900 gold reserve. 1t is true that
OF the receipts of bond sales portion
had been used to meet Treasury def
cits-by far the greater portion OF
these having grown under McKinley's
own bill. But as II net result there
remained at the beginning of this
fiscal year, a couple of months ago,
sufficient free cash in the Treasury.
after making provision OF $100, 000,-
900 for the gold reserve, to have met,
without additional taxation, all def
cits for six years to come, even though
pension expenditures should during
that time remain-as they connot-a5
their late high figures, and though
postal receipts should stop increasing
as they will not-and though husi-
ness should remain until 1902 as de-
pressed as 1t mas been ever since, the
Treasury was put at hazard. Under
such conditions, with q surplus in the
Treasury above the gold reserve, OF
more than 10 per cent. of the entire
circulation in the country outside OF
the Treasury, Mr.. Mckinley proposes,
without any necessity for revenue, and
solely as a sacrifice TO the protection
fetish, further to tax our people and
iurther to contract the currency.
Mr.. Mckinley charges that American
labor is not sufficiently protected un.
derssthe Wilson bill.
What would he have?
The average duty levied by the vii.
son bill upon all imports, including
free as well dutiable ones, is above 90
per cent, which is about the total la.
Dor cost in American products. In
the more highly developed manufac.
lures it is of course higher. OF these
those of iron and steel and textiles
constitute the greater part of our i'm.
ports, and steel rails and cotton and
woolen cloths are probably the most
representative items. Taking the re
ports for 1890 and 1891 of the United
States Commissioner of Labor, we find
that the total labor cost per ton OF
steel rails "from materials in earth to
the finished product" was then in the
United States $11. 50, in Great Britain
$7.8l and on the Continent somewhat
higher than in Great Britain. To meet
this So. rs difference per ton IN labor
cost, the Wilson bill gives $7.Sl per
ton protection, which, with the trans.
port cost of such bulky articles, IN.
sures the American producer protec.
tion of az least his total labor cost In
cotton and wooden cloths the same re.
ports show the labor cost then to have
been on the average well under 25 per
cent, while the Wilson bill protects
them by duties averaging 40 per cent,
or, with every allowance land adding
nothing for transportation) giving
protection of moro than the total la.
Dor cost. Il. in fact, labor, with such
tariff, is not sufficiently subsidized,
even from the protectionlst stand
point, would it not be we'll before pro-
posing further taxation to find out
what proportion of the tariff taxes la
Dor actually gets, and into whose
pockets goes the bulk of the "protec.
tion" claimed to be imposed for Ia.
boris s6so benefit?
- JOHN DE WITT WAGNER.