New-York tribune., 1903-07-25
THE TARIFF AS 4 CONTRACT.

The obligation of contract is often invoked
by corporations to avoid new taxes. The fran
chise holders of Ncw-YOrk are just now ap-
pealing to the Supreme Court on that ground
in their endeayOrs to escape taxation on the
value of their franchises. 1t is something new,
however, to find the tax laws themselves con-
strued as a contract and therefore not subject
to change, lest the constitutional rights of citi-
zens be invaded But now come the Oppo-
nents of the Cuban reciprocity treaty annOunc-
ing that doctrine. Advance sheets of "The
American Economist have been sent to us, in
which recent remark of The Tribune concern
ing the desirabiity of immediate action on the
Cuban treaty when Congress assemblies is at
tackled. and several questions are proposed for
long debate by the House Among them is this:
Does it not involve the violation by the gov
ernment OF a contract of agreement with GER
tain producing interests of the United States
namely, the Dingley tariff law?
We have heard a great many unpleasant
things said about the Dingley tariff law and
its working which we did not believe. We never
expected to see its professed friends suggest
what its enemies have sometimes charged, that
it was not, indeed, a piece Of national legisla-
ton, but an instrument in a commercial bar
gain; that it was not a revenue law passed for
public purposes, but a stipulated price paid to
certain business interests for value received
We have not believed these things. We do not
believe them. On the contrary, we have con-
Sdered the Dngley law on the whole, a wise
and patriotic measure, at the time of its pas
sage well adapted to promote the prosperity of
the whole country, and since outgrown and in
need of modification only in detail. If it was
a contract with the sugar and tobacco interests
as now suggested, then our faith has been mis-
placed. If the Dingley law was a contract
with certain producing interests" then it must
have been passed in payment of some supposed
debt The producing interests in question
must have paid something for it.
\ contract implies consideration. What "pro-
ducing interests" rendered valuable considera-
ton which gives them a right to look on a
law of the United States as a contract which
the United States has no right to revise at will?
What was the consideration? To whom was it
rendered? What are the secret clauses which
give what is on its face a mere tax law the
character Of a contract? Certain producing
interests have a contract with the United
States, have they?-a contract, not that they
shall be taxed only at a certain rate, or shall
not be taxed at all, but that somebody else
shall be taxed for their benefit? For how long
does this contract run? Have the certain pro-
ducing interests" acquired a perpetual lien on
the country by the passage Of a contract in
Strument establishing an interchangeable tax?
What claim had the producing interests on
the lawmakers TO induce the creation of such
an astonishing obligation. amounting to the sale
and alienation Of the governments future legis-
lative power?
We do not believe that they had any, or that
Congress thus violated its duty It is much
more probable that the opponents of any change
in the schedules to conform TO the Cuban treaty
are merely indulging in reckless assertions and
advancing grOundless claims. Certainly. If
there had been any such bargain and sale of
the taxing power and the establishment of
rates a contract agreement those who were
enjoying the benefit of such betrayal Of public
trust would be the last TO boast OF it.