The weekly herald. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 1906-19??, 1908-08-27

est alarm in the following clause In
our platform:
Gradual reductions should be
made In such other schedules as may
be necessary TO restore the tariff to a
revenue basis"
lie regards this threatened depart
ure from the protective system as
fatal, We are here brought face to
iace with the theoretical difference
between the positions OF the two par
ties on the subject OF tariff, The
Democratic party regards tariff law
as a revenue law, the protection II
gives being incidental; the Republic
can party regards tariff law az
framed primarily for protection, the
revenue being incidental, As the ei-
tect OF given rate on particular
article is the same, whether levied
for the purpose OF revenue or for the
purpose OF protection, II may be well
to define the difference between a
revenue tariff and protective tariff.
A revenue tariff is so framed as to
collect a revenue and You stop when
you get enough; protective tariff
may be so framed as to collect a
revenue and yet lay heavy burden
upon the people--and you never
know when 10 stop, To illustrate; a
tariff may be made so high as TO abb
solutely prohibit importation. n, in
such a case, the manufacturers yield
to the temptation mentioned by Mr..
Taft and combine to take advantage
OF the duty, the consumers will be
heavily taxed, and yet none OF the
money will reach the treasury.
Let us suppose another case: II
we import one-tenth OF a certain
kind OF merchandise and produce at
home nine-tenths, and the imported
and domestic articles sell at the same
price, then the treasury receives duty
on the foreign article and the man
ufacturers collect nine times as much
on the domestic article as the
treasury collects on the one
tenth imported. 1t becomes a
matter of great Importance, there
fore, to the people at large, whether
the tariff Is intended to raise a rev.
enue or is framed in the interest OF
the manufacturers and for the pur-
pose OF protection. No one would
think OF employing in city, a coun-
ty or state, a tax system under
which the bulk OF the tax would go
TO the collectors and yet the Repub-
lican leaders demand the continuance
OF a system under which the protect
cd interests receive far more than
half the money collected from the
people through the operation OF q
high tariff.
As a tariff law interieres with the
natural laws OF trade, one who pro-
poses a protective tariff, takes upon
himself the burden OF proof to show,
first, that a protective tariff is right
in principle; second, that II is wise
as a public policy, and, third, that 1t
is necessary. And yet, what pro-
tectionist attempts to present an ar
gument in support of any one OF
these propositions?
Is It right to AK all of the peopl
for the benefit OF few? Where a
community has attempted to collect
taxes for the aid OF an industry, even
when the industry was to be located
in the community, the highest court
in the land has declared such a tax
to be larceny in the form of law. II
a city government cannot rightfully
tax all the people to bring an Indus
try into the city, where such ben
Gifts as are conferred are more easily
seen and more universally enjoyed,
who will say that a farmer In the
Missouri valley can be rightfully tax
ed to support an industry in a dis
tant state?
AS matter Of public policy, Is 1t
wise that the industries that do pay
should be compelled to carry upon
their backs industries which, accord
ing to the arguments made by their
representatives, could not live with
out aid? Have we not seen this sys-
tenn introducing corruption into pol
itics, and is 1t not building business
uopn an unsubstantial basis? Hav-
ing secured a tariff from one party,
the beneficiaries loudly declare that
the country will be ruined II any 9TH
er party obtains control Of the gov
eminent. Manufacturers have intim-
idated their employees and threatened
them with a reduction in wages un-
less a party favorable to the system
was continued in power. This is an
old device, and there are indications
that it is being resorted to again.