Year: 1870




II is evident that Mr.. Schenck and his COL
leagues Of the Committee of Ways and Means,
who have worked up the Tariff bill now before
Congress, are either legslating without under
standing what they are about or for the in
terest Of the rich and certain class of manu-
facturers. Except in the reduction of duty
on tea, sugar, coffee and some few other
articles, the new tariff increases the burdens
of the poor and the mass Of the people. The
modification of duties on these articles oven
is such that the cost to the consumer will
hardly be perceptible. The change is suff-
cient to benefit the traders and merchants to
some extent but not great enough to be of
much or any advantage to the consumer. To
show how little regard is paid TO the welfare
of the poorer classes we may notice the change
in the duty ON wines. Under the existing
tariff there Is discrimination between the
high priced wines, which only the rich can
afford to use, and the lower priced ones, such
as ordinary Bordeaux, which people of ordinary
means use. Mr.. Schenck proposes to impose
a duty Of fifty cents gallon on all wines





of those of low price and within
the reach of the body of the people, while
it will rednce the duty hundred per
cent or more on the high priced wines,
which only the rich consume. To say nothing
Of the injustice of this to the poorer classes,
or Of such partial legislation in favor of the
rich, the proposed change shows ignorance Of
what is beneficial to the morals and well
being of the community at large. Cheap
wines are healthful, and prevent the use of
poorer classes can get cheap wine little
ardent spirits is used, and there is little
drunkenness. Let us have in this country
cheap wine, and there wonld be much less
whiskey and other abominable trash con-
sumed, which do so much to kill or injure the
health Of the people. This proposed modifica
ton of the tariff on wines proves how incom-
petent members of Congress are to legslate
for the welfare Of the country.


We might notice the increased duties on
wearing apparel, and on many other things Of
general consumption; but the bill is full of
such Inconsistencies. 1t is framed for the
benefit Of few manufacturers and the rch
And beyond that the duty of forty dollars a
ton which is imposed on Russian hemp is
liable to get us into difficulty with the best
friend we had among the nations during the
war. The Russian Minister claims that 1t is
contrary to the commercial treaty Of 1882, as
the clause makes distinction against Russian
and in favor Of Manila hemp, the latter being
subject to duty Of only twenty-five dollars
per ton. Other foreign Ministers at Washing
ton make similar complaints of the provisions
Of the BILL The test vote the other day on the
question of the tariff, being for revenue only,
and not for protection, showed that the protec-
tionists are not so very strong in the House of
Representatives. On this motion or declara-
ton of Mr.. Marshall the protectionists had
only majority of twelve, the vote standing
eighty-nine to seventy-seven. The democrats
from Pennsylvania voted against the protec-
tionists, which shows that the democratic
party, irrespective Of section or local interests
holds its old ground against protective tariff.
The time is not far OFF when, with the growth
of the West and full restoration of the South,
tariffs for protection will be things of the
past.