The Washington times., 1909-03-24

/ fore seeker after markets rather than
goods, it becomes apparent that the ma
/ tional policy should be one Of friend
ship and good will; of pleasing other
countries; of encouraging them 10 buy
[ from us; Of buying from them, on the
most favorable terms. the things which
we cannot produce. 1t must be policy
of reciprocity, not of retaliation; of re-
warding, not of Furnishing.
Thus it~appears that there is a double
reason for imposing no customs duties
on those articles which are necessary 30
al the people and which cannot be pro-
duced here. For instance coffee. We
must have il and we cannot raise 1T.
/ Everybody uses it. II is one Of the
staple necessaries of life. 1t should be
given TO the people at the lowest pos
sible price. By giving it to them on
that basis, two purposes are served
| First, the people are enabled to enjoy
it. Second, they are given the cppor-
+ tunity to sell the surplus of their prod
ucts to the countries which produce the
coffee. 1t becomes an exchange o. mu-
tual ,nefts, and it should be hanlPered
SIS little as possible.
Revenue with incidental protection Is
one statement of the case. Protection
with incidental revenue would perhaps
be quite as fair This great, rich coun-
try could raise its revenue, if IL desired,
/ In a half score of different ways, and
not impose a great or unjust burden. 1t
hos chosen to raise it in the main from
customs and internal revenue taxes.
/ And in the adjustment of the customs
tariffs. the protection given TO Ameri-
/ c,n industry il at least as important as
the revenue which Gould be secured in
plenty OF other ways. The protection
can be had in only one way; the rev.
caue, in many.
/ This IS the first lesson in the con
struction OF tariff scheme TO meet
/ present-day conditions in this country
Complicated in manifold ways by the
questions of conserving natural re-
J sources, Of supplying raw material from
abroad for industries ID which we can
not furnish it. of giving on the whole
the greatest benefits TO the greatest
number, it is still the same question In
different guises.
! The necessaries of all the people
( Should bear the least burdens. The
Injuries OF the rich should bear the
heaviest. 1t has been a part of tariff
policy in the past to give the masses
OF people their daily necessaries without
taxation or with the least taxation
possible That policy should continue
to govern, and the exigencies of a tenn
porary financial stress should not, must
not, be made to drive the nation away
from the safe, sound policy of the past
in this regard.
The taxes on coffee, tea, spices, cocoa,
are wrong, and should be rooted out of
the Payne bill. The tax which means
nothing more than shelter to a grasp
ing monopoly should not be allowed.
That means, for instance, the counter
vailing duty on petroleum, which has
somehow sneaked into the bill. 1t must
bc eliminated.
Altogether, the Payne bill bears evil
dence Of sincere effort in many direc-
tions to do the right thing. But its
makers have sadly slipped at times +;
anG their mistakes, if erystallized final
" into law, would involve the ruling
party in disaster. First of all, it must
be borne in mind that the breakfast
table of all the people is not to be taxed
while revenue can so easily be raised
from the luxuries of the few who are
fortunate enough 10 have luxuries.