Omaha daily bee., 1908-08-22

in the tax upon luXuries would benefit but
a portion Of the people.
Surely no one will object to "A reduction
being made upon articles which come into
competition with American manufacturers
which are sold abroad more cheaply than
at home. The American manufacturer who
sends his goods to foreign lands and there,
without any protection whatever, completes
successfully with the manufacturers of all
the world, does not need a high tariff to
meet competition in the home market. And
there are enough articles sold abroad at a
low price to assure a large advantage to
the American consumers through the carry
ing out OF this one plank.
Revenue Basis Talk.
Mr.. Taft, however. finds the greatest
alarm in the following clause in our plat
form:
GRADUAL reductions should be made in
such other schedules as may be necessary
to restore the tariff to a revenue basis
He regards this threatened departure
from the protective system as fatal. We
are here brought face to face with the
theoretical difference between the positions
of the two parties on the subject OF tariff.
The democratic party regards a tariff law
as a revenue law, the protection 1t gives
being incidental; the republican party re-
CARDS a tariff law as framed primarily for
protection, the revenue being Incidental.
AS the effect Of a given rate on a par
ticular article is the same, whether levied
for the purpose of revenue or for the pur-
pose of protection, II may be well to de-
fine the difference between a revenue tariff
and a protective tariff. A revenue tariff
- ~ AoAAAN as w ~ 49,
you stop when you get enough; a pro-
tective tariff may be so framed as to col
lect but little revenue, and yet lay a
heavy burden upon the people-and you
never know when to stop. To Illustrates;
A tariff may be made so high as to alb
solutely prohibit Importation. II. in such
a case. the manufacturers yield to the
temptation mention by Mr.. Taft and COM
bine TO take advantage of the duty; the
none Of the money will reach the treasury.
As a tariff law interferes with the nat
ural laws OF trade, one Who proposes a pro
tective tariff. takes upon himself the bur
den of proof to show, first. that a pro-
teCtive tariff is right In principle; second,
that It is wise as a public policy. and,
third, that II Is necessary. And, yet, what
protectionist attempts to present an argu-
ment in support Of any one of these propo-
sitions?
Is 1t right to tax an Of the people for the
benefit Of a few2 Where a community has
attempted to collect taxes for the aid OF an
Industry, even when the industry was 10
be located In the community. the highest
court I'm The land has declared such a tax
to be larceny IN the form OF law. II a Guy
people to bring an Industry into the city
where such benefits as are conferred are
more easily seen and more universally en-
tcved, who will say that a farmer In the
Missouri valley can he riEhtfully taxed to
support an industry in a distant stateP
As a matter Of public policy, Is II wise
that the industries that do pay should he
compelled to carry upon their backs IN
dustries which. according to the arsunenls
made bv their representatives, could not
live without aid? Have We not seen ms
system introducing corruntion into politics,
and Is II not buildine business upou an IN
substantial basis9 Having secured a tariff
from one party. the beneficaries loudly
declare that the country will be ruined II
any other party obtains control Of the gov
eminent. Manufacturers have intimidated
their employees and threatened them with
a reduction in wages unless a party favor
able TO the system was continued In power
But the whole system Ia vicious. Bust
ness should not he built upon legislation:
II should stand uDon It's own merit and
when II does stand upon its own merit we
shall not only have purer politics, nut We
shall have less fluctuation in business CON
ditions and 2 more equitable distribution
Of the nroCeeds Of toll.
The third proposition which the protec-