Graham guardian. [volume] (Safford, Ariz.) 1895-1923, 1897-06-25
TARIFF FOR REVENUE, AND
TARIFF FOR PROTECTION
THE DIFFERENCE

| Inc Nall0nal bW6tuUtSt mus uoiy
discusses the tariff question, de-
monstratlng fully that the party
of the majority in Congress is not
working in good faith, according
to pledges made previous to the
election:
"Persons who keep track OF pub
hc affairs cannot have failed to note
that those who are officially press
ing for tariff legislation put it upon
the ground that more "revenue"
is needed, rather than that more
protection, is required. The
necessity for "more revenue was
the point chiefly dwelt upon by
President Mckinley in his procli-
nation calling Congress together
in extraordinary session.
Secretary Gage, in his speech to
the Commercial Clubs, LAID par
ticular stress upon the revenue fea'
lures of the pending bill. He de,
clared that with the es tablshment
of a revenue law sufficient to bring
into the Treasury an amount ad-
equate to meet the reasonable
needs of the Government, and the
establishment Of our finances on a
sound and enduring basis, nothing
now foreseen can deIy the recovery
of past losses, etc, etc"
To one who knows the difference
between a "revenue tariff and a
"protective tariff" this has a very
strange sound. -.
Everybody who is familiar with
the subject knows that duties to
produce revenue must be laid upon
articles that will continue to be
imported after the duties are i'm
posed. They must, therefore, be
made not SO high as to exclude the
article, but just high enough, so
that the quantity imported multi
piled by the rate of duty will pro
duce the largest possible sum.
A protective tariff, on the other
hand, requires either partial or
total exclusion Of the foreign ar
ticIe so as to give the home pre-.
dncer control Of the home market,
and the more the foreign article is
excluded, the less the revenue from
that source will be,
The only reason why a prOtec'
tive tariff law ever produced sui
ficient revenue is that the tariff
covers multitude Of different
commodities, some Of which we
produce largely, and others only
to limited extent, or not at all.
1t, therefore, naturally divides
itself into two distinct parts, the
one operating to protect certain in
dustries, and the other to produce
revenue. To illustrate this: A
duty of so or 60 per cent on wool
ems would very largely prevent the
importation Of such goods, and
consequently the revenue from that
source would be small. But it
would foster the wooden manu-.
facturer. That is "protection."
On the other hand, we only pre-
duce about one-eleventh Of the
sugar we consume. We import
about ten. etevenths, and must con.
tInue to do so, or else limit the
use Of it. Therefore the higher
the duties the greater will be the
amount of revenue obtained, unless
it be placed so high as to restrict
consumption. This is destinc-
lively "revenue" duty.
1t IS evident that if "sufficient
revenue" had been the only thing
aimed at, bill for that purpose
could have been passed in week,
or ten days mt the outside, because
nobody, Republican, Democrat, or
Populist would object TO the Coy
eminent having sufficient revenue
to reasonably meet its wants. Bat
tho question at once arises, how
is more revenue" Chat is, more
money IN the Treasury gong to
revive the dropping industries of
the country? II is not scarcity Of
funds IN the Uniteu States TreaSu-
rY that is troubling the average
citizen; it is tho scarcity in his
pocket or private safe. And right
here second pertinent query |
auses: How IS the prling up of
more money in the Treasury going
TO also put more money into the