The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-31
SENATOR CANNON.
Editor Herald:

Editor Herald.
In speaking of Senator Cannon's re-
cent utterances on the subject of a
tariff on exports, you say:
1.-The leading Mckinley Republican
papers of the state do not like Senator
Cannons amendment to the senate
tariff bill providing for a bounty on
exports
J Now, with due Difference to The Her.
/ AIDS opinion, must say that l do not
understand the senator to recommend a
bonus; have not read his late speech,
but if 1 have correct idea of his prop
osition, il is TO provide by law for a
| tariff on exports. as well as imports.
The Herald, / take it, must recognize
| the difference between a tariff and a
| bounty; the Provo Enquirer may not
| do so, however. AS The Herald admits
that it agrees with the Enquirer when
/ il asserts that Senator Cannons policy
is impracticable and will not receive
sanction, it occurs to me that possibly
the readers of your respective papers
would be glad if reasons and arguments
/ were substituted for bare assertions.
/ Senator Cannon. il would seem, is pc
/ culiarly unfortunate in having incurred
the criticism of Chandler and the En-
quirer, and incidentally The Herald.
unless, indeed, it shall be made TO ap
pear that he is right and his critics in
error.
1t is natural that the two former
should denounce the senator on ac-
count of his dissent from their views on
the subject but l can with difficulty
be made TO understand why Demo-
cratic newspaper should be found aid
ing and abetting Republican papers in
denouncing a man for changing his
mind on a political question, while at
the same time they are urging upon
the people a change of mind in regard
to the great question of finance, at
present paramount issue.
Ever since the organization Of the
Democratic party one Of its prominent
issues was that of a tariff, differing
with the old Wing, and the present Re
publican party, in this. that, whereas
they advocated a protective, and the
Democracy a tariff for revenue.
1t viii not be contended that the
Democracy at any tine denied the adj
visibility of an export tax; it is posi-
bic that the party has never at any
time contended for such a tax, tariff
or impost duty but this fact cannot be
urged as a reason why such policy
should not now, or al some future time
be adopted.
AS the object of the Democratic party
is to provide sufficient revenue TO carry
on the government by judicious tariff,
for my part l am unable to perceive
sorted to under proper circumstances.
We (the Democracy have always held
that the consumer pays the duty, and
we do not for a moment hesitate TO
compel our own citizens TO pay an i'm
port tax; may 1 ask why we should be
more tender of the foreign consumers
of our commodities?
The people of the United States pro-
duce great many articles; many of
them are required by other people, for
which they are willing TO pay, and il
they are content to pay an export tax
ON such articles, il seems to me that we
would be justified in providing such tax
as an aid to the income tax in defray-
ing our expenses.
But Senator Cannon does not need
defense from me; lie is doubtless COM
petent to defend himself and his policy,
which is not bounty, but a tariff on
exports. Respectfully,
HADLEY d. JOHNSON.
Tremendous Reductions in All De-
partments
For our Great Unloading Sale.
F. AUERBACH & BRO.
-