The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1897-05-15
wrong Again.


Ey tho benefit Of The Westminster Aiyocatc we
he 20 point out that if the exemption from duty o.
tnpate used in making cans ioE ex poT. Is
which is on the free list is the recipient OF Doun-
ty.--BdhtH0re Neles.
Not at sll. IA the one case no tax IS col
Iected and the exemption from all taxation
benefits the consumer. In the other case me
tar is collected and If returned, IS returned to
the Gamer.
The rebate on tin is wanted to enable can
ners to cheapen their goods and compete IN
foreign markets. This does not benefit the
American consumer 1t simply places upon
him further taxation to make up the amount
oe the rebate. The object of tariff law
should be the raising ofrevenue. The needed
amount of revenue being ascertained tax to
meet it is laid. If by the operation of a re-
bate clause the revenue should be inadequate
higher taxation must be resorted to to meet
the deficiency caused by the rebate. or new
subjects for taxation be found.
The rebate on tin is simply a gift from the
government to enable Gamer to widen his
market and sell his goods abroad. A tax for
protection IS designed to keep foreign goods
ont Of the American market so that it can be
monopolized by the industries protected.
The tax not only enables the American man
ufaeturers to practically monopolize the home
market, but it gives them opportunity to charge
excessive profits, which opportunity is gener-
ally, if not always, availed Of
The rebate on tin and protective tax are
the same in principle and the same in oper-
alton. and no believer in tax for revenue
can Justify a rebate on tin that is used in the
export trade In standing for the retention
the rebate clause the Be,cs and Sun, as the
ADVOCATE has heretofore stated, are doing
exactly what they condemned the Louisiana
Senator's for doing. They wanted the great
sugar industry of louisiana protected by a
differential tax; the Neles and SIN want the
great canning Industry of Maryland protected
in its export trade by a return Of thu tdr paid.
And these same two great tariff reform
journals, as they suppose themselves to be,
not only scored the louisiana Senators, but
thew raised an awful Juror against Senators
German, Brice, Murphy, Jones and others,
who acceded to the demands OF the Louisiana
Senators. They did this, too, when they
knew that without the votes of the Louisiana
Senators no tariff bill of any kind could have
been passed.
In the light of these facts it is very appar-
ent these two journals were more interested
in destroying the influence Of Mr.. German in
this state than in expounding their honest
views on the principle of taxation When
proposed law menaces the export trade of
Maryland industry, these journals call 1t an
tedious tax and an outrage. DIR. German
never announced that he favored tax on
sugar for the benefit of the sugar trust or the
Louisiana growers and refners. As the late
President said, SIT was a condition, not
theory that confronted him, and he made the
best of the condition-got the Louisiana Sen
ators to submit to a reduction from one-fourth
of a cent q pound, as the Wilson bill provided
when il was sent to the Senate, to one eighth
of a cent, and accomplished the passage of a
tariff law that reduced taxation, increased
largely the export trade of the country and
saved the Democratic party from the charge
of being incapable to legislate for the country.