The San Francisco call., 1897-03-23
EEPoRT OF The MINORITY.
Democrats Cg7sns the Bill WiH Only In
crease the 1ar.

Democrats Claim, the Bill VIII Only In
crease the 1aE.
WASHINGTON, D. c., March 22-The
views of the minority of the Committee on
Ways and Means on the tariff bill were
presented to the House this evening by
Representative Bailey CD of Texas. the
leader of the Democracy. It reads as
follows:
This bill was framed with the avowed pur-
pose of protecting the manufacturers of the
United States against foreign mpetition and
il is perfectly obvious if it accomplishes that
purpose it must result in compelling the con-
sumers OF this country to pay more for their
manufactured goods. and for this reason we
think it should not pass
We rest our opposition on the broad princi-
pie that Congress was investe with the power
OF taxation as means of collecting from each
citizen his fair proportion toward the support
of the Government, and that it is a gross per-
version OF that sovereign power TO emp,oy it
as means OF enabling favored classes to levy
unjust charges upon the great body of the
people. We believe that after contribu ting his
proper share toward the main tenance of the
Government, every citizen of this Republic is
entitled to the fuii possession and enjoyment
of all he ecu honestly earn, and We deny the
right of Congress to make or enforce anv regu-
lation h;ch requires one man TO give any
part OF his honest earnings toward enconrsg-
ing the enterprise or increasing the fortune
OF another.
No man, however blind he may be, would
defend system OF taxation under which the
Government first collected the moey and
afierward distributed 1t among its favorites.
II is true that the tariff act OF 1890 ventured
TO this extent in dealing with the sugar
growers, but the disapproval of tina. policy
was so oycrwhe miug and SO bitter that the
advocates have been iorced 10 abandon it, and
they have not dared 10 incorporate any pro-
vision for direct bounty in the present bill.
We are unab e, however, to perceive any diff
ference in principle between a law which re-
quircs the Government TO collect the money
and distribute IL among the protected indus
tries and law which enables these industries
10 collect the money directly from the people.
There may be some difference in the method
OF making the collection and in the cost of
doing So but there is no difference whatever in
the principle involved. If the Government
has the right to levy taxes upon the people
tor the purpose of inducing men to establish
Improbable industries or Industries which
can only be made profitable by compelling the
consumers OF the United States to pay exerb,-
tant prices for their products. then the bounty
system is more direct and less complex way
of attaining that end, and at least has the ad-
vantage OF directness and simplicity.
The majority OF the committee seems to
think that taxation can be made blessing.
and that the support of the Government, in
stead of being burden upon taxpayers, can
be made to enrich them. If this opinion is
well founded then all the struggles for free
dom which have revolyed around the oues-
tion of taxation have proc .eded upon false
theory, and the American colonists when they
determined that they would not submit TO
taxation without representa- tion INDUCED a
mistaken zeal for liberty. The patriotic re-
solve OF our forefathers not 10 use goods upon
which Great Britain had laid an import duty
was wrong if the argument the British I'M
porters were really paying the tax over which
the American colonists went to war was right.
There cannot be found in the wide range OF
economic literature an authority Jth the few
and rare exceptions which only serve to en-
phaSIZe the general concurrence, who does
not treat taxatlon direct or indirect, as bur
den; and when we remember that protective
tariff not only col ectss more Tor the Govern
ment than is needed for its economical ad-
ninistration, but that it also enables favored
classes TO collect more than the Government
itself, the injustice becomes SO clear and
fiection upon the intelligence of the American
people 10 suppose that it can escape their
swift aud decisive condemnation.
1t follows as q matter OF course that O bill
based upon vicious principle must be in
jur IONS In its effects, and perhaps no effect
could be more pernicious than the extrava-
gance which the bill encourages. The tabu-
lated statement embraced IN the committee
report shows that the bill is one to raise $I13,-
100000 more revenue than was collected in
stoms during the last fiscal year; and yet,
as Is shown by the same report, the differ
ences between the Governments receipts and
disbursements during that year was only
$25, 600 600. 1t is well known that the i'm
portations OF last year were smaller than
Usual. owing to the general depression that
existed in all circles; but even sunposing that
the importations hereafter can be kept at
level with the importaiions of 1896, the bill
Will collect from the people more than $780,
100000 annually above the requirements OF
our present extravagant and wastef1l appro-
priaIions.
IL may be, however, that the majority
should not be arraigned for their open en-
couragement OF extravagance, because it can
that taxes are not a burden should feel that
money derived from taxation ought to be
lavishiy spent. Nothing could better illus
the fact that there flows from it as direct
consequence the habit of treating the cxpen-
diture oi public funds as benefit rather than
enough for complaint if the burden were the
only result of the extravagance, but in free