The herald., 1896-04-23
THE TARIFF IN POLITICS

The Herald is in receipt Of the follow
ing criticism of recent editorial treat
ing of the futility of the attempt to
take the tariff out of politics."
Editor Herald: In your issue of last
Monday was an editorial against TAX
ing the tariff out of politics" / am a
Prohibitionist, and l notice that the
class of papers to which The Herald be-
longs are in the habit, at irregular inter-
walls, of prOnouncing prohibition fail
ure." Now. was there ever more con-
spicuous failure than the attempt to
settle the tariff question by the political
partisan plan? 1t would be tedious to
review the process. but it ought to be
sufficient to point to the fact that, after
a century of effort to settle the question
on that line 1T is farther from settlement
today than 1t was the day the first tariff
bill was introduced in congress.
There can be no reasonable doubt that
the great mass of Republican voters,
and some Democrats believe that the
Wilson bill Is largely If not entirely re-
sponsible for the present deplorable con-
oition CT the country. Whatever may
have been it's good or bad results since
Its passage, there Is no room for doubt
that. from the time of Clevelands elec.
ton until the bill became a law it did
untold damage. Tradesmen would not
Sdiiy StOChS duu manufacturers WOulQ
not produce goods, with reduced duties
and consequent lower prices pending;
and consequently industry and trade in
many lines stood idle, productive
and waiting.
Now turn 1t the other way. Suppose
Mckinley should be elected president
with Republican congress. Importers
would fill their warehouses with i'm
ported goods. brought in under the Will
son tariff. and for which the people
would have to pay Mckinley tariff
prices.
The foregoing are some Of the natural
results of trying to adjust the tariff by
partisan politics.
With non-partisan commission of
experts.appointed something like judges
OF the supreme court, and proviso that
Whatever changes were made, either for
greater or smaller duties, should be
gradual. we might certainly hope for
better results. JESSE YARNELL.
The Herald's critic is evidently of the
"peo6le who have given no thought to
the subject of taxation and have no con-
ception OF the relation taxation of ne
cessity bears to politics." to quote from
the editorial criticised. Like the bal
ance of his school of taxation thought
lessness he fails to grasp the essential
proposition that the question of tariff
taxation involves the consideration of
political principles regarding which
people most radically differ. He does
not lay down any plan, nor can he, nor
can anybody else, whereby the people
can reach an agreement as to the re-
spective merits of these antagonistic
political principles, except through
public consideration and public discus
sion.
The differences of opinion that keep
the tariff question the subject of parti-
san contention are not differences as to
schedules, but as to principle Some peo-
pie believe in a tariff for protection:
others hold that a tariff should be levied
for revenue purposes only; others again
proclaim allegiance to that inexplicab BILE
proposition Of a tariff for revenue with
incidental protection-about as logical
as the scheme to have the fiat and in
trins1c money theories represented in
the same dollar. In the degree that
tariff produces revenue it is non-pro-
tective. A tariff is protective when it
prevents, not when 1t permits importa-
tons. Then there are people who are
opposed to any tariff on imports at all
viewing taxation by that method as
utterly unscientific, unjust and gener-
ally absurd. And, by the way, of these
antagonistic opinions on the tariff ques-
ton. the last noted is the only one that
is entirely correct The burden of tariff
taxation is of necessity unequally dis
tributed, only the people using the arti-
cles taxed paying, while the non-users
of these articles enjoy to as great an
extent as the others the benefits of the
government sustained by the tariff
While as a method of taxa ton a tariff
on imports is like every other indirect
tax method, expensive in operation and
uncertain as to results. But waving all
consideration of the merits of the re-
spective views of the tariff question, it
is apparent that the tariff is in politics
and the bone of partisan contention be-
cause people cannot agree as to the
principle of tariff legislation, OF even as
to the need of tariff at all. As The
Herald said in the editorial to which its.
correspondent takes exception, the
only way to take the tariff out of
politics is to take it out of existence"
The subject of taxation is economic in
nature, and economic questions cannot
very we'll be adjusted by non partisan
commissions. The dream of non-parti-
san action in large matters of govern
ment may be realized when every body
agrees with everybody else, not before.
That frequent changes in the tariff
or uncertainty as to the tenure of tariff
laws are calculated to unpleasantly dis
turb business there is no doubt That
such is the case only emphasizes the ne
ossity of the people solving the problem
of taxation. But the mere fact that
somebody's interests are deranged by
altering a system of taxation in no
way excuses tolerance of that system
The interests that are hurt by changing
inequtable and absurd taxation are as
wronged by leaving it unchanged. The
failure ito settle the tariff question bv
the political partisan plan" in no way
indicates that the question is not a DO
litical one. 1t only proves that the
people are not, in an economic sense, as
they We're, the tariff would soon be-
come relic.
II is rather late in the day, long time
after the light has dawned, to lug in the
of the Wilson bill being re-
sponsible for 1.-The present deplorable
condition of the country" and to say
that the great mass of Republican