Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-08-10
The War Tax a Pretense.

A large free list, not the European
war. was mainly responsible for the
falling revenues during the last fiscal
year. Advance figures issued by the de-
partment of commerce show that the
value of our imports for the fiscal year
1915 was s1,674, 22o,7 $40, which yielded a
revenue of soo9 ,26S 900, or an average ad
valorem rate of 12.5 per cent. on all i'm
ports, compared with 1888, 1925, 900 for
1914, the first year Of the Democratic
tariff law, which yielded 1922, 12S 500. an
average ad valorem of 15.4 per cent. In
other words, with our huge German
and Austrian competition practically
prohibited, expectation from all the
rest of the world curtailed, and embar-
goes On food products and raw materi-
ais from Australia, New Zealand.
Egypt and many other countries, we
imported in 1915 only about 1920, 900 900
less than was imported during the first
year Of the Democratic tariff law.
If to this sum of 1920. 000, 900 the aver
age ad valorem for that year be ap-
plied-12.5 per cent.-it is plain that the
loss in revenue due to the war up to
June 80 last was but s27,50o,000. The
prime reason for the decrease in reve-
nues was not due to decreased impor-
ta.ions, but to the fact that MORE
GOODS WE'RE COMING IN UNDER
THE FREE LIST. July, 1914, was a
normal month under the Democratic
law: so the 1920, 900. 900 decreased i'm
months, August, 1s14, to June 1915. in
elusive, an average monthly decrease
OF $50, 000,0 900. At this rate, the decrease
in iniportations July to December, next
six months-would be s12O 900 900,
making a total loss of importat tons
which the Democrats might consistent
1y charge to the war of almost $780,
100000 for the II months. At the Demo-
cratic average ad valorem rate for
1915-12.5 per cent.-this would mean
a total loss in revenue for II months Of
war of 100000. Or, going even far
Their. and applying the higher average
ad valorem for 1914, under Democratic
law-15.4 per cent.-and the total loss
in revenue. due to the war would be
So, 800 COO
On September 4, 1914. the President
in a message orally delivered to Con-
gress, appealed for additional taxation
of the people to the amount of $780,,
O00,0G0 although possessed Of ample au-
thority to issue bonds for that amount.
He based his plea on the statement
that the revenues We're falling off, DUE
TO THE WAR. Mr.. Underwood forced
through Congress what was Familiarity
known as the war revenue measure,
which burdened the people with $685.
100000 additional taxes. 1t was not a
war measure, nor was it a necessary
measure. 1t was a cloak to cover the
deficiencies of the Underwood tariff
law, which had failed, and was "a pid-
ly becoming more impossible, as an ad-
equate revenue producer in normal
times. The bill was passed after a bit
ter fight. Every man who had to pay
that tax will recall the manner of it's
administration when he votes next
n fnr
On June 80 last, it was estimated that
the treasury department had collected
51,000,0 900 of this war tax-nearly as
much as the entire loss of revenue for
the period up to December next, which
could conceivably be laid to the war,
and at the higher average ad valorem
rate of 1874 per cent. But they are 60
ing right on collecting the tax, not be-
cause Of decreased importations, which
are again back to Democratic normal
but because more and more goods are
coming in free. or at the lowest rates
of duty.
Having relied on the war DOGGY to
distract the attention Of the country
from the real reason for declining rev.
enues. the Democrats then turned
around and appropriated for the fiscal
year 1916 something over sss, 00o, 900
more than was appropriated by the last
Republican Congress.
Are these things worth thinking over
seriously?