The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-08-22

10 AAOA0CASA1s Al Inc GlIeCI OF q XIV
en- rate on a particular article Is the
same. whether levied for the purpose
OF revenue or for the purpose Of pro-
lection. It may be well to define the
difference between a revenue tariff
and q protective tariff. A revenue tar
III is SO framed as to collect a reve-
nue. and you stop when you get
enough; a protective tariff may be
so framed as to collect but little reve-
nue., and yet lay a heavy burden upon
the people-and you never know when
to stop. To illustrate: tariff may be
made 30 high as to absolutely prohibit
importation. If. in such q case. the
manufacturers yield to the temptation
mentioned by Mr.. Taft and combine to
take advantage OF the duty, the con-
sumers will be heavily taxed. and yet
none Of the money will reach the
treasury:
Let us suppose another case: If we
import one-tenth OF q certain kind of
merchandise and produce at home
nine-tenths. and the imported and do
mestio articles sell at the same price.
then the treasury receives duty on the
foreign article and the manufacturers
collect nine times as much on the do
nestle article as the treasury collects
on the one-tenth imported. 1t be-
comes q matter of great Importance.
therefore. to the people at large.
whether the tariff Is intended to raise
a revenue 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 county
or a state, a tax system under which
the bulk OF the tax would go to the
collectors, and yet the Republican
leaders demand the continuance of
system under which the protected In
terests receive far more than half the
money collected from the people
through the operation of high. tariff
AS a tariff law interferes with the
natural laws Of trade. one who pro-
poses a protective tariff, takes upon
himself the burden Of proof to show.
first, that q protective tariff is right in
principles: second, that 1t il wise as a
public policy, and. third, that 1t Is
necessary. And, yet, what protection
list attempts to present an argument In
tons?
Is 1t right to tax all of the people
for the beneflt of a 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 tax to be
larceny in the form Of law. If city
government cannot rightfully tax all
the people to bring an industry into
the city, where such benefits as are
conferred are more easily seen and
say that a farmer in the Missouri val
ley can be rightfully taxed to support
an industry in a distant state?
1t Corrupts Politics.
As a matter of public policy, is it wise
that the industries that do pay should be
dustries which. according to the argu-
ments made by their representatives,
could not live without aid? Have we not
into politics, and is It not building busl-
ness upon an unsubstantial basis! Hav-
beSne fsS loudly declare that the coun-
try will be ruined IL any other party OBJ
ta1ns control Of the government. Manu-
and threatened them with a reduction in
wages unless a party favorable to the
system was continued in power. This is
that thu ut # is being resorted to again The
New York Leather Betting company has
sen5 out wt WheS il Of has Business
ings, asking them to post In their rae
tories a notice saying;
Sherman means a safe and conservative
administration. the day following the cleo
ton we shall start this plant on full time
and keep going"
Here is a direct attempt to influence
the election by a bride. 1t is virtually
a promise of wages IL the Republican
in case of Democratic success; but the
offer is so made that it gives the employees
no guaranty Oh IulllllfnenI. ne Sdiilc
kind of promises were made in 1896. and
yet for six months after the election
times were worse than they were before
There were business failures and bank.
ruptctes. and many institutions that
their employees steady work and
good wages. shut down or reduced wages
the Leather Betting company is sending
out. the employees ought to get together
ana +b ask for qua a. as to the nd
to the length Of time during which the
guaranty is to extend. If the votes are
should be made secure. If the employees
MISUNDERSTANDING to be sold, he
ought. at least, to be sure of his mess
of pottage.
But the whole system is vicious. Bush |
ness should not be built upon legislation; |
it should stand upon its own merit. and
when It does stand upon its own merit |
we shall not only. have purer politics, but |
We shall have less fluctuation in business |
conditions con- ms and q more equitable distribu-
I cannot pass from this part of my sub |
1ect without calling attention to the fact |
to be drawn into the use Of an argument |
which the beneficiaries Of protection have |
been employing for a generation. Speak |
enue tariff for the protective system, he |
says in his notification speech:
THE introduction in power of a party ;
with this avowed purpose cannot but halt
the gradual recovery from our recent
financial depression ana produce business
compared Win WnlCh our recent
panic and depression will seem small in
deed"
Threat OF Panic.
Here il a threat of a panic If the Repub-
lean party is not retained In power. This
panic argument was worked overtime in
1895. but am surprised that a Republican
refers to 1t in the present campaign.
We have had three panfcs since the Re-
publican party was born; the panic of
1873, the panic OF 1893 and the panic of
l9U. The panic of 1873 came after the
Ranuh1fcan narfv had been in cOn1r,1atp |
control Of the federal government for
Twelve years. and eleven years before our
party succeeded in securing control of the
starting panic and depression" of 1873
occurred in the very midst OF Republican
-ule. just after Republican victory, and
Under q high tariff. Is 1t not strange that
Secretary Taft should forget this panic,
when he warns us to beware Of any de-