The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-08-11
The Tariff as n Contract.

The obligation Of contract is often
invoked by corporations to avoid new
taxes. The franchise holders of New
York are just now appealing to the
supreme court on that ground in their
~endeavors to escape taxation on the
value of their franchises. 1t is some
thing new, however. to find the tax
laws themselves construed as a con
tract and therefore not subject to
change, lest the constitutional rights Of
citizens be nvaded. But now come the
opponents of the Cuban reciprocity
treaty announcing that doctrine. Ad-
vance sheet of The American Econ
omist' have been sen to US, in which
a recent remark of The Tribune con
corning the desirability of Immediate
action on the Cuban treaty when Con-
gress assemblies is attacked, the sew
eral questions are proposed for long
debate by the Gus Among them is
this:
Does it not involve the violation by
the government of a contract of agree
ment with certain producing interests
Of the United ~States-namely. the
Dingley tariff law?
We have heard a great MANY unpleaS-
ant things aid about the Dingley tar
if law and it's working which We did
not believe. We never expected to see
its protested friends suggest what its
enmies have sometimes charged. that
it was not, indeed, a piece Of national
legislation. but an instrument in a
commercial bargain; that it was not a
venue law passed for public pur
Dcn h,,& n -4ir,,1o4nI >-ion IL 70
certain business interests for value re-
ceiVed. We have not believed these
things. We do not believe them. On
the contrary. we have considered the
Dingley law, On the whole, a wise n
patriotic measure. at the time Of its
passage we'll adapted to promote the
prosperity of the whole country, and
since outgrown and in need of modifi-
cation only in detail. If it a a on
tract with the sugar and tobacco inter-
est, as now suggested, then u faith
has been misplaced. If the Dingley
law was a contract with certain pro-
ducing interests" then it must have
been passed in payment of some SUI
posed debt. The producing inter
ests" in question must have paid Some-
thing for 1t.
A contract implies consideration.
What producing interests" rendered
valuable consideration which gives
them a right to look on a law Of the
United States as a contract which the
United States a 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 a mere tax law the character
of a contract? Certain producing in
tereStS' have a contract with the Uni
ted States, have they?-a contract. not
that thnv shall be taxed only at a GER
tain 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? ave the certain
producing interests" ACQUIRED a per-
petual lien on the country by the pas
sage of a contract instrument estab-
fishing an Interchangeable tax? What
claim had the producing interests" on
the lawmakers to induce the creation
amounting to the sale and alienation
of the governments future legislative
power?
We do not believe that they had any,
or hat congress thus violated its duty.
1t is much more probable than the op-
ponents of any change in the schedules
to conform to the Cuban treaty are
merely INDUCING in reckless assertions
and advancing ~groundless claims. Ger
tlinly, if there had been any such bar
ain and sale of the taxing W and
the establishment of rates on a n
tract agreement. those who were en-
joying the benefit Of such a betrayal
Of public trust would be the last to
| boast of it.-New York Trihunee.