The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1909-06-08
Revenue VS.. Protection.

The Calhoun Advance lectures US
about the votes Of Senator Tiliman
and Congressman Lever as follows:
We take it for granted that The
Times and Democrat knows that
the amount Senator T3llman voted
as a tax on tea, that it was an ad
yalorem tax of Ills per cent, and
when Congressman Lever votedior
q duty on lumber 1t was an ad
valorem tax of only 93 per cent,
vet it contends that Lever voted
a tax for protection and Is Re-
publican, and Tillman voted a tax
for revenue according to the rea-
soning of The Times and Demo-
crat, our idea is that "the boot is
on the other leg" or as The Times
and Democrat would say, the
"joke" is on the other fellow, and
if ther vote is criterion to go by,
Tillman is the protectionist or
Republican, and Lever the tax for
revenue nan. We believe Till
man and Lever are both right and
The Times and Democrat is wrong.
We can't figure out the taxes on
tea and lumber as gi"-1 above by
tie Advance. and We wou.i be- gle1
If our contemncrary woull show us
in detail how it arrives at the con-
clusion it does in the matter. Those
who have figured out the matter SO
as it can be understood by the gen
eral reader say that tax OF ten
cents per pound on tea would yield
a revenue of $9,O00,000 to the gov
ernment and give incidental protec-
ton OF $500 to the tea growers OF
the United States. Even The State
comedies that the commodity or
tea is attractive for revenue taxa
ton" and admits that tax of three
cents pound on tea would raise
but little less than $3,000,00O i'll
revenue. which agrees with the fig
ures we give as the revenue that a
ten cent tax would raise. If a COM
modify that yields S9,G00,O0O reve-
nue. to the government, with only
$1,500 incidental protection, is not
attractive for revenue taxation,
we would like the Advance to name
one that is.
The Louisville Courier-Journal.
which has always beer a good au-
thority on tariff matters, says the
allegation that the lumber tariff
is revenue tariff is ridiculous, as
the vast lumber industry Of this
country is almost entirely domestic
industry, the tariff on lumber being
prohibitive, and only yield
ing about s4.000.OOO revenue to the
We will leave the Ad-
vance to figure out the amount of
money the lumber trust is permit
ted to rob the people Of through
the operations of tariff law that is
TO be passed for its special benefit
and which will yield only $4,000
300 revenue to the government: For
It's guidance in figuring it out, We
would say that for every dollar the
government gets out of the duty
IN lumber the trust gets from ten
o fifteen dollars. In putting duty
IN lumber, the Republicans do so
on the ground that they
propose to protect the American lum-
,er interests against foreign impor-
ations, and the claim of the Advance
hat it Is a revenue tax would make
he trust supporting Republicans
mile.
From the above showing, it will
,e seen that the duty on tea would
'roduce a handsome revenue for the |
while the duty on lum-
'er fills the pockets of the trust at |
he expense of the people, while |
Producing comparatively no reve-
!ue for the government. In defend
ng the action of Congressman Lever |
II voting to protect lumber, the |
ADVANCE puts itself in the ranks of |
he protectionists and subscribes to
he Republican doctrine that it is |
ound business policy to tax the
lillions of consumers for the bene-
it of the few producers. That means |
hat the consumer has no interests |
o be considered AS The News and |
;ourier says, I'VE fail to see how |
that enriches the producer
t the expense Of the consumer is a
ound business policy, or why the
nan who builds home for his fami- |
V. the congregation that builds a
hurch, or the community that builds !
school house, should be expected
O bear the burden Of this tax that |
viii go principally into the pockets
# the dozen or 20 men that contro. |
pe lumber output of the South"
the Advance can enlighter
IS.