New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-03-23
4 DUTY ON COFFEE.

The statement recently telegraphed from
Washington that Congress may be asked TO I'M
nose an impcrt duty on coffee has led to not
little interesting discussion. The government
has had hard work 10 live within its income
since the last cut in internal revenue taxation.
For the year ending June 80 there viii be
deficit of about S20000,000. The year ending
June 80 1906 it is hoped, will show surplus of
S5.OOOOOO or $6,O00,00O, but should collections
fan off il will also show deficit. AT the last
session Of Congress heroic surgery had to be re-
sorted to to keep expenditures for 19Oo-O6 with
in the governments estimated income. Pay
ments to the sinking fund have been sus-
pended, and Congress has been forced TO stint
it's zeal for public building and river and harbor
improvements. An increase of S3OOOo'OOO TO
900 in the revenues would ease a sttua-
ton under which many members of the two
houses have begun to chafe. 1t would afford
margin against which to draw for expenditures
now prohibited. It would effectually lay the
now ubiquitous spectre of a Treasury deficit.
Legislators pinched by the retrenchment policy
followed in the last Congress are, therefore, in
a mood to welcome an expedient like the tax
on coffee which promises to raise at one stroke
as much as 500 600 900 of additional revenue
The argument made in favor of reimposing the
duty on coffee is ingenious. Thirty years ago
coffee was taxed five cents a pound. On the
theory that it was cheapening breakfast table
necessity Congress abolished the tax. But
Brazil, which sends us most of our coffee,
promptly imposed an export tax Of five cents
pound practically turning duty into her own
treasury. 1t is argued that with an import tax
here Brazil will have to remit part or all Of
the export charge to retain this market against
the competition Of other coffee growing coun-
tries In that case something like return to
former conditions might be accomplished. Cof-
fee would not be much dearer than before and
| the Treasury would be better off by the amount
of the tax, which at one cent pound on last
years importations would have produced S10,-
| 100000 and at five cents a pound $4,000, 900.
| Were duty Of some sort restored Porto Rico
and the Philippines would reap an incidental
benefit. Porto Rican coffee would come In free
! and Philippine coffee-were the Philippines to
produce satisfactory berry-wouId come in at
three-fourths of the new rate. To Porto Rico,
! certainly, this concession would be of enormous
| benefit. The Porto Ricans lament the fact that
| their coffee, though Of excellent quality, has
| never been able to make Roadway against the
| cheaper and more doubtful grades with which
! our market is flooded. tax on these inferior
| grades would therefore give the Porto Rican
product chance to establish Its popularity with
| the American consumer.
| The advocates of tax on coffee have so far
| only advanced these tentative suggestions. They
| do not maintain that definite action need be- or
should be, taken at the next session OF Con-
| gress. The country can get along on its pres
emf income for the next two or three years. but
| a larger income viii be needed thereafter and
| some REIMBURSEMENT of the revenue system will
| become necessary. The governments revenue
| from imports coming into competition with homo
products is more likely to fall than to rise with
| a revision of the protective schedules. We can
| not well increase our taxes on raw materials
| used here for manufacture. Unless we want to
extend the internal tax system, we shall have to
face the necessity of increasing duties on lux
uries or imposing new tariff taxes on practically
| non.compeiitiys articles Of general consumption