The independent., 1904-01-28

our consumers are sometimes pinched
by the high price.
If the duty on sugar is now too high,
as we all think it is, for purposes of
protection or encouragement Of our
sugar producers-in the north or in
the south-then of course the excess
Of what is necessary for protection
is certainly intended for the revenue
Of Uncle Sam; and, whether, intend
ed or not for revenue, it certainly
adds to the revenue of the United
States.
Democrats, as a rule, never object
to tariff duty, no matter how high,
provided only that it is for the ben
eft of Uncle Sam, but they always
object, if the duty is for protection
Tor encouragement of the revenue of
a citizen-and they ooject on the
ground of highness. They are always
watching for high duty, If ii is for
protection; but never for high duty,
il it is for revenue. They are will
ing, apparently, to pay any amount of
taxes on consumption whether the
consumer is able to pay or not.
Republicans, as a rule, never object
to duty, no matter how high, proyid-
ed only that it is for protection. Nor
do they object if the high duties are
for revenue.
Now, it SO happened in the recent
debate on the Cuban reciprocity treaty
that the duty on raw sugar (1h cents)
was admitted, by the leading repub-
licans, to be too high for purposes
Of protection, but not high enough for
purposes of Uncle Sans revenue.
This was distinctly admitted by the
committee on ways and means lMr.
Payne chairman) in their report to
the house. l call particular attention
to this, because it Is a good illustra-
ton of the difference between a duty
for protection and a duty for rev.
enue alone. 1t shows that a duty
may be high for one purpose and low
Or not high enough for another pnr-
pose; that the duty on sugar, for in
stance, was too high for protection
and not high enough for revenue.
/ have been wanting, for a long
time, to come across some such illus
tration as this; and it was not until
/ sat down to read the report of Mr..
Payne, that my eyes lit upon it; and
any man who wants to know the diff
ference between the two tariff systems
can see it by reading Mr.. Payne's ar
gument in support of the Cuban rec
iprocity bill.
The great difficulty with our pres
ent tariff law is, not that the duties
| are too high FOR protection, but that
there are too many duties for rev.
enue merely, and the mischief OF the
whole business is that the democrats
are eager to point out the duties tnat
are too high for protection, but never
eager to call attention to the fact
that there should never be duty
for revenue merely.
What the country needs today is a
tariff law in which there shall be no
duties for revenue-and another law
| (first passed. providing that when
ever the government needs revenue ii
shall be furnished by taxing the citi-
zen according to his or her wealth.
and not in proportion to the amount
of food they consume.
The two old parties are each now
| trying to get into good position be-
| fore the people on the tariff question
in order to carry the presidential eiec-
ton. The republicans will preacn pro
lection and the democrats tariff 1ol
revenue only. The result will be
tnat the republicans will win, and
then they will continue the old law
which will have more revenue tariffs
in it than any democrat could thinl
Of. This is the way things have beer
running the past twenty-five years
right under our own eyes-and ye
the thing will continue, unless th'
new party acknowledges the principle
or theory of protection as settled, ant
then procedes to make law that viii
tax wealth. whenever revenue II
wanted for the treasury of the Unitet
States.
What Is wanted today is part,
that can unite the north and th,
south. These two sections have beer
estranged too long. They neye
should have been separated. as the,
have been. Ii has been the work o
demaFogues. or at least OF men. no
well informed. Slavery did IL. bu
L 49, - n