The Indianapolis journal., 1898-12-02
THE TARIFF LAW.
III Is Not Failure, and Should Not
BE Tempered With.
New York Financier

NeW 4ork F1nancier.
1t has been urged that since the monthly
1ISSCelpts are raIling below expenditures the
Dlngley bill is a failure. There are two
ways OF looking at this. From a purely rev.
nue 9 STANDPOINT. law which does not per-
IoTm the functions for which it is designed
cannot be pronounced a success. On the
other hand, If q law fails of operation be-
cause II has brought about a condition of
othcr directions traceable to its enactment,
tnen the question of failure must be nea g
ureG f py a different standard. That is ex-
dcIly the position which the present tariff
law occupies to-day. Perhaps it would be
nearer the truth to say that the law is rela-
Lively Nv success because it represents pol
Icy OF winch II is only the exponent, and
winch has been enforced with but few in
terrupuCns for many years. No revenue
law can be called perfect but legislation
Wnlch Iorces community to be independ-
ent rather than dependent on the outside
world comes nearer that standard than any
Otner considered in this light the Dngley
olil and its predecessors have been success
Iul. Ihay have made this wonderful man.
~ iHlaclurlng Nation-so great in fact, that it
Is serious question whether imports can
lnuch longer be depended upon as the basis
OF revenue production.
A review of the policy of protection for
q NUMBER or years past shows beyond ques-
tlon tnat the gradual result has been to sub
SIltute nome manufactures at the EXPENSE
or the foreign producer. Iron is an Illus
Iratlon which proves the truth of the theory.
Whether the heavy tariff did or did not
encourage the development of this industry,
d
We know that American Industrial skill
fostered in the beginning by protective
polcy, mas now reached a plane of per-
rectlon where 1t not only holds the home
market but competeS in the worlds mar
ketS as well. Manifestly, a tariff on iron iS
superhuous so Iar as its necessity for pro-
tecunS the nome market is concerned. So
IN other directions the heavy duties have
encouraged home production and COMPETE
ton until the country finds that it is in real
ity an industrial giant, the peer, in point OF
excellence and cheapness, of any rival in the
world. Many honest believers in an oppo-
site pohcy assert that this condition could
nave Deen reached through an adherence to
other principles. Assuming for the moment
that this is true, the main fact to be consid-
cred IS that we could not have done better
IN any case, and that as long as revenues
We're needed to conduct the government, il
matters little in the end how they are COLI
lected, since the incidence of taxation in all
cases seeks one source-the consumer And,
more to the point, taxation is less burden-
some when 1T falls on a prosperous people.
The idea that by lessentng import duties
taxation is made less burdensome was ex-
ploded several years since, when the pro-
ceeds of bond issues We're diverted toward
meeting deficiencies in revenue. We did not
escape taxation-the ultimate payment was
merely postponed. The money needed for
government expenses must be raised in some
manner, and absolute free trade no more
means that this burden of taxation is les
sened than a mans rent ceases when his
employment fails. But the country has now
reached point where 1t can manufacture
many of the things once imported; in fact,
it not only produces of these things all that
1t needs, but it is able to sell to the world.
That explains why, aside from the cereal
exports, our imports are decreasing and our
exports Of manufactures are increasing.
Can it be said in the face of such condi-
ton that a revenue bill, or a series Of rev.
enue bills, which have led to such results,
are failures, or that we would gain by going
back TO point where we imported every
thing and manufactured nothing. in order TO
raise revenue?
To do so now would be impossible, for the
simple reason that the industrial advance
ment of the country precludes 1t, but,
granting that such a proposition is feaS-
ible, would not history repeat itself and re-
veal the fact that the revenues failed be-
cause a country whose citizens are deprived
OF labor is unable to buy imported goods
no matter how cheap, relatively, they may
be?
All partisan bias aside the tariff has be-
come a business, rather than political, IS
sue. To threaten the settled position of our
industrial fabric in order that revenues may
be raised from one source Is absurd. Better
direct taxation that can be paid without
effort, than experiments which cost mill
lions more than the tangible totals IS
shown in treasury schedules. AS long rs
present conditions prevail. we can see no
reason why the Dingley bill can be called
a failure, as far as import duties and their
ultimate effect are concerned, even though
revenue from this source continue TO fail
heavily. 1t may be necessary to change the
basis of taxation. The result is the same.