rSMiii
Vol. XV.
LINCOLN NEB., MARCH 10, 1904.
No. 42.
TRADE V. TARIFF
FOR RJEVENUE ONLY.
Editor Independent: It is now quite
certain that Hearst and Bryan will
. control the next democratic national
convention. It is equally certain that
. the opposition to Bryan and Hearst,
in the convention, will unite upon
Cleveland; but Cleveland and Co. will
not be able to make the platform;
and, not 'being able to control the
platform, they will not be able to con
trol the nomination. It will be im
possible for Cleveland to stand upon
any platform that Bryan and Hearst
will make, and, consequently, . Mr.
ICleveland and his friends will have
.to retire and leave Bryan and Hearst
to run the convention. .
. From one point of view it makes
little difference which side makes the
platform and nomination in the next
democratic convention; because, if
' Cleveland is nominated, he will pre-
. i 1 tariff
reform, or tariff revision,' (all of which
mean the same thing), as the parar
mount issue; and if Hearst and Bryan
or Bryan and Hearst are nominated,
they will ajso -present tariff for rev
enue only a3 the paramount issue.
I ' If Bryan and Hearst do not present
the tariff as the paramount issue, they
.will talk enough about it and con
demn protective tariffs so much that
the republicans will be able to make
the tariff question the paramount is
eue. On this issue the republicans
will certainly win and Hearst and
Bryan (or Bryan and Hearst) will cer
tainly go; down; because the demo-
crata- will be foolish enough to open
tfie door fof the republicans to bring
forth their great doctrine of national
nrntntinn nf American industries. .
s' They will show that protection of
manufacturers not only makes the na
tion strong, as' against other compct
inV nations but" that manufactures
make a market for agricultural prod
ucts. With this line of argument they
will carry the farmers in the country
and the mechanics of the town and
city. They will carry every northern
A state and nothing willibe left for the
democrats except the southern states,
where they have been preaching tar
iff for revenue only for half a century
and more.
Free trade is not so deadly a doc
' trine as tariff for revenue only. There
are- only two objections to free trade,
namely, we cannot get the restof the
nations to adopt it and, if we couid,
we must adopt some other method of
supporting the government before we
can think of adopting free trade.
For instance, we can open our ports
- tlio trarlo ttf nil nntlnna. hnf wa
cannot compel any other nation to
open her ports to us. Therelore, be
fore we can have free trade, we must
take all other nations into our Union
ana extend our laws all over the
world. We can have reciprocal trade
by opening our ports to the trade of
other nations, on condition that they
pen their ports to our trade; but we
cannot have absolute free trade until
we can, in some way, govern all other
"nations. Free trade, then, is a chi
mera and cannot be thought of until
our laws extend round the world.
Again, before we can have free
trade we must provide some other
method of taxation for the support of
the national government. We are
now collecting about two hundred
millions per annum by way of duties
on foreign merchandise at the cus
tom houses. If we should have free
trade, there wculd be no duties col
lected at the custom houses, and the
government would lose two hundred
millions per annum; and the wheels
tif government would have to stop,
iirtll some other method of taxation
Vvvre provided. As yet, wo have nev
er been able to agree, upon any nulh
xl of taxation (n iw we should
adopt free trade, and, therefore, tree,
tiade ha leen an lmjolbimy.
Mr. Henry Ceorgfl and his follow
rrs rou a single tax upon lar.d
aiue a a 'ibtltuie for custom
rtotmn taxes and all other kind of
taxation; but Mr. (.Torge and his fol
lowers have pot been able to eon
tlnre the people that their system
of tatsllon would prove practical for
the support of the national govern
ment, much le&s for th support of
any local government in our towns
or cities.
For the above reasons few states
men in this country have adopted" the
theory of free trade as practical. On
the contrary, our statesmen have been
divided between the two theories of
tariff for protection and tariff
lor t revenue -only. And, . yet,
free trade is not so deadly a doc
trine as tariff for revenue only. It
is. a singular thing, and nevertheless
true, that nearly all our great politi
cal men are divided between Tevenue
tariffs and protective tariffs, instead
of being divided between free trade
on one side and tariff for revenue only
on the other. It is also a singular
fact that nearly all those who are
clamoring for free trade are philan
thropists, not practical politicians or
statesmen. Consequently, the only
thing we have to debate about, so far
as the tariff is concerned, I3, shall
tariff duties be imposed for revenue or
protection ? . . ' ,
.We cannot, therefore, think about
the grand theory of free trade, by
people ought to be taxed, not accord
ing to the amount of goods they may
export or import, or the amount of
such goods consumed by them, but ac
cording to the amount of their in
comes or the amount of property in
herited. t These are the, proper y
jects of taxation, so far as our H
tional government is governed, whe
ther the doctrine appeals to the state
and municipal governments or not.
. No public man in this country has
gained a hearing for fiee trade ex
cept Henry George. No public man
in this country has dared to advocate
free trade except Henry George and
his followers. And it as safe to say
that Henry George, would not have
gained a hearing (and followers) if
it had not been that he first wrote
"Progress and Poverty" in which he
set up a peculiar scheme of taxation,
indorsed by a great many people and
thereby gained a great many follow
ers. Had Mr. George's system of taxa
tion Internal taxation upon
wealthbeen practical so that it could
ty seen, by great masses of the coni
mon people that the federal govern
ment at Washington could be sup
ported without resorting to taxation
upon imports of foreign merchandise,
it is very probable that his system
would have found a great many more
rv 2
2 ty v v
8
"A bill is in course of passage through congress to appropriate $90,000
to build a stable for the president's horses."
which the products of a cold climate
can be exchanged for the products of
a warm climate, without the hlndr
unce of taxation upon exports and
Imports, (3orae governments putting
duties upon exports as well as 1m
potts). We are. In fact compelled to , face
powerful, sovereign nations on eveiy
square foot of the, earth's surface;
and the products of warm and cold
climates cannot be exchanged with
out permission of these governments.
Consequently, philanthropists who
want our government to open our
ports to free trade of the world muM
get all the nations of the orld to
open thflr ports for admission of our
rchkIs into their lountrlrs, fteo from
taxation.
In other words, philanthropists
rnul teach all the tutlons of the
world and convince them that they
oi.uht to eae collec ting tmpott ua
tics or rxirt duties, tor th sake of
Kovernmental revenue only; and that
whenever a pwernmcnt wants or
eeds revenue It ought to t obtained
by taxing the wealth of Its popb In
proportion to the amount of their
vUlbls wealth found in any nation;
which Is equivalent to tajlng that
followers. The difficulty with Mr.
George's system was and is that If it
Is adopted we shall not have free
trade, but that we shall have tarlfts
for revenue only.'whlch may be high
er and a gTcnter burden upon the
people, all things considered, than
tariffs for protection only.
Free trade Is not a dangerous or
deadly doctrine, because very few peo
ple, comparatively, believe In it and
very few people will believe U it as
Ion as there are so many Indepen
dent national governments on the
earth's surfacethat are aU trying to
see how much they can get out of
the people by fixing tluir food, drink
or clothing, Instead of taxing them
according to their wealth ind ability
to pay and benefit! received,
IM us, then, pray not for free
trade, but for the abolishment of all
Kovernmenta thit are trying to sup
t-ort thenmlvcs by tariffs for revenue
only. If we can wipe out rt vrnce ttr
Iffs and subtl.nte internal taxation
upon wealth, we wit) have all the free
trade we need and will be good for
us.
Frcs trade Is pot a dancervus dec
trine, because we shall never have U
until we c&a succeed la UUMu all
tariff duties that are for rVrentw
only; and we shall never be able to
do this until we can abolish the pres-v
ent so-called democratic party In this
country. The democratic party seems
determined to stand by a tariff for
i f,iT'3nue only, whatever position .it
may take on other subjects.1 The
party may differ within Itself as to .
free coinage of silver, the issuance of ;
greenbacks instead of bank notes for
paper money, and a greafmany other
bubjects; but it cannot differ as to
the tariff. Both wings of the party
are for a tariff for revenue only,
which is much farther frm free trade
than "protection for the sake of pro- i
tection" is. Under such a condition if
of things there is no danger from free
trade.
IC some of our thinking people,
who are advocating revenue tariffs,
would only see that they are working
away from free trade instead of to
wards it, they wovild come out for
tariffs for protection only, with in
come taxes for revenue only.
As for the Cleveland wing there
is no hope.' They are Joined to their
Idols revenue tariffs, gold standard
and bank notes for paper money. But
as to the Hearst-Bryan wing or the
Bryan-Hearst ving, there Is some
hope. It may be that they will see
the folly of tariffs for revenue only
and drop them (before the next na
tional -convention of their party) and
subtltut3 In lieu thereof income and
Inheritance taxes 'for revenue only,'
If so, let us pray for them.
JNO. S. DE HART.
Jersey City, N. J.
' Kansas Election Law
Editor Independent: I have been
reading The Independent for nearly a
year, and am very glad to find an
Old Guard populist paper which still ,
insists upon laws for land, transpor-- '
tatlon and' finance reforms,! together
with direct legislation, and kindred
progressive measures. I have not
changefl my views, from what I ex
pressed In The Independent last June,
namely, that we have gone too far,
and can never again rehabilitate the " - '
people's party, , much as we may de
sire it. " ' 4 , :,
It the democrats "reorganize" na
tionally this year, or make a mean
ingless platform, with a -wobbly can
didate, I suppose most populists will
want a ticket in the national field.
But even then, I do not see much to '
be accomplished thereby. Of course,
no old-time populist will support "re
organized" democracy, nor pluto- -cratic
republicanism. . And the social
ists may continue too radical for us,,
though I do not see the Wide differ
ence between them and us populists
that The Independent think it sees.
They carry public ownership farther
than our platforms have done, but
hardly farther than many populists
have believed and talked for years. '
Of course, a thorough-going public
ownership doctrine eliminates largely
the money and land questions, be
cause the public ownership" of the
land, and larger Industries will leave
little for the money-lender to con
trol, after the plants are paid for by .
the public.
I am unwilling to refuse to co-operate
with democrats, or any other par
ty where we can see thereby a way
to advance our principles, so I have
filled out the Old Guard blank sent
me, and Inserted that exception and
reservation. I believe In holding up
the standard of tho triple reforms,
until some other party takes them up
In earnest and permanently. I hare
never voted any ticket but the popul
ist, which hss oftlmes been a fusion
with democrats In Kansas, and al
ways a fusion In this county except
once or twice.
I send also a Hat of a few populists
of this county. Two years ago the
ten showed that very many populists
preferred the democratic jarty as a
permanent party when we held two .
conventions UhoiiKh we fuacd).-Quite
a number of populists went lack to
the republican party since 1K Oth
ers are sothlUit.
The plan of nominating randllalts
directly y a referendum vote Jul
lt me. and I send my preierentul
ballot herewith marked. I hop many
will tue It 10 as to furnish dsta as
to Its feasibility. It U far better ttua
a convention, and Jf 8.K would par
thlpate, that would beat any ronven
tiou ever held ou earth fur truly rvp-