Evening journal., 1918-08-12
MONDAY, AUGUST II, 1918.
FIVE YEARs AGO. AND NOW.

H I'VE years this country imported si,si30O00OO
II worth OF goods, wares and merchandise which paid
customs Of s3sOOOOOO That for the fiscal
year 9i3 under the policy Of protection and the policy
Of free trade impending The official figures Of the De-
partment OF Commerce, Just published, show that for
the fiscal year juno 30 1918 we imported $685.
100000 worth Of goods, which paid a duty Just under
sis0oo0O00 Thus sii39OOOOO increase in the value Of
imports during the fiscal year recently ended, paid
si3sO0OO0 less duty than realized the imports Of
1913. True this 1918 import total value is due
in some port TO the worldwide increase in the price Of
commodities, but the other hand. the Democratic
tariff law is ed valorem law the duties being laid
the invoice value of the goods imported.
Had the law been wisely drafted. from the View
point Of the middle-ofhe-road Democrats who argue
mildly for tarl-for-revenue-ony, the revenues would
have been largely augmented last year by receipts from
customs. II plain 10 be that an imported article
valued at 81 before the and quoted at 1885,
should produce revenue on an ad valorem basis
today than did in 1914 What the Democrats did was
to overreach themselves. In their TO smash large
domestic industries their stupid faith that lower
tariff made cheaper living cost they transferred too
large share Of imports to the free llst-farm pro-
ducts, for instance WOOL ETC. Seyentyve per cent Of
our imports for 1918 paid red cent Of duty, as
against 81 per cent Of free goods 1918 consisting Of
raw materials and foodstus such coffee tea cocoa
ETC. not produced in this country hence not competing
with American industries
This fatal blunder Of the Democratic party
in its tar legislation OF i9i9 It gave the farmer in
creased competition hut t failed to reduce the cost Of
living, as we all remember and it increased our depend
ence on foreign countries 70 wool There are other |
blunders in which the party still persists In fact with
respect to the tariff the party has no fixed or definite
policy whatever. Within the last year least dozen
Democratic leaders have each given uterance 10 views
on what should be future tariff policy each one
differing from the others At the same time the countries
Of Europe are reinforcing their tariff walls and England
particularly has quite rsDgusted her free trade policy
and IS drafting protection legislation
Hon. C0rdell uH, the author Of several income tax
REFUSES. quoted saying recently. MANY people
have an erroneous impression That tariff taxes come from
inexhaus6is o. capable Of meeting the
most sKtraordinsry expenditures The largest amount
that could possibly be derived from customs source IN
the future win not exceed between sD0OOOOOO and
s5o00o00- Huus fallacy IS apparent The chief role
of TIE protective tariff that Of raising rev.
snues, but 70 keep industry going the highest attain
able capacity. HulTs pet method Of raising taxes
through income taxation could never be made ecacious
without something 20 tax and that something consists
of The rnnss of the very Industries which the Demo-
cratic tariff policy wo-d reiegste 70 the scrap heap
With the Republican protsetlye tariff policy restored
In this country, incomes which the Federal Govern
ment must depend for tax 20 pay postwar in
debtedness win be assured. To persist IN free trade
sfter the war would 70 dry up those sources i'm
poNerish the people, and ultimately result IN repudl
ton Of the national debt You can't draw blood from
stone.