The Camden chronicle. (Camden, Tenn.) 1890-current, 1896-10-09

WAINA lHN.E fHNIAlH MaEalHENENs NuE oar /
postal receipts had shown such
tendency 10 increase as. through those /
two eourcea alone and without any "a
proyament in business, 10 turn Ono
daic.t into surplus before tha net
shall have las.cl mli Of ii8 natural /
lfa.
It's NOT, hogegCs. claimed but that
my conceivable revenue could 30
turned in.o q deficit by Republican
expenditure. That, however, oouati-
tutcs no excuse for attempting to meet
limitlesa waste By pililoa8 taxation.
Aud If for any reason it becomes
desirable to provide for more revenue
10 can bo and Il should be raised by
taxes on wealth, or By teriT or excise
upon articles comparatively those OF
luxury, rather than by increased tax.
alton upon wool and sugar. For those
are the two articles which-the one in
clothing and the Other in food-hayo
become at once the leading ones OF
oil those consumed by our people, and
those as TO which tho poor and the
rich are most nearly on par as to- per
capita consumption; and upon which,
therefore, any tax is ideally vicious
as az adjustment Of burdens IN proc
portion TO want rather than wealth.
Even wero mr. Mckinley correct in
his charge that tho Wilson act is ln.
adequate for revenue purposes, his
| proposal now 30 increase taxation
would be none the less absurd when
we consider the actual condition Of
tue Treasury. At the beginning OF
this focal year It contained OF free cash
some 1910, 900, 600, that is to Say,
$40, 900, 600 in addition TO the $780,
900, 600 gold reserve. 10 is true that
of the receipts OF bond sales a portion
had been used to meet Treasury def
sits-by far tile greater portion OF
these having grown under McKinley's
own bill. But as o 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 500, 0O0,-
600 for the gold reserve, to have met,
without additional taxation, all def
cts for six years to come, even though
pension expenditures should during
that time remain-as they cnnnot-at
their late high figures, and though
postal receipts should stop increasing
AS they will not-and though bust.
ness should remain until 1902 as da-
| pressed as ig has 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 q sacrifice to the protection
fetish, further to tax our people and
further to contract the currency.
Mr.. Mckinley charges that American
labor is not sufficiently protected IN
dersthe Wilson bill.
What would he have?
The average duty levied by the VIII
son bill upon all imports, including
free as well dutiable ones, is above 20
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
wooden 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. SO, in Great Britain
S7.Sl and on the Continent somewhat
higher than in Great Britain. To meet
this $3,78 difference per ton In labor
cost, the Wilson bill gives 1874 per
ton protection, which, with the trans
port cost of such bulky articles, IN
sures the American producer protec-
tion of of 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 20 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 more than the total Ia
Dor cost. If, in fact, labor, with such
a tariff, is not sufficiently subsidized,
even from the protectionist stand
I point, would it not be well before pro-
posing further taxation to find out
what proportion of the tariff toxes Ia
Dor actually gets, and into whose
pockets goes the bulk OF the "proteo-
ton" claimed to be imposed for Ia
boris sole benefit?
JOHN De Writ WARNER.