The Iniquities Of The Tariff

Washington cor respon il ence N. Y. World. "Wasiiixoton, Maroh 17. - Tho tediuni of tho fcniturday scssions of tho House was relieved yestcrday by a very fair attendance and by a vary vigoroua and ablo dubate on the tarift'. Mr. Kerr, one of the Democratie ïueinbers of the Ways and Means Coinniittee, opeued tlie discussion by one of tho clcarest and most forciblo efforts on this great question ; a question, too, which is veiy generally sought to bo illustrated by elaboratoly involved theorios instead of by facts and figures. The speech grated harshly on tho ears of tho protective tariff interest, and Mr. Kclley, of Pennsylvania, deuiuring that none such should go the country without an answer, proceoded to inake a vehemont reply. Mr. Kerv oponed his remarks by defining what constituted a tariff fbr revenne in our existing syetcras oL taxation, and then pioceeded to giv& forcible examplcs ;nil illustrations of revenuo duties, as citod iu tho case of salt, coal, coffce, woolens, toa, sugar, silks, spirits, wines, tobáceo, &c , in which he inultipliod oxamplos of a vicious tariff adjustlaent. He followed this by an exposition of the truo principios of tariff reform, demonstratcd tho actual cost of governmont to eiich citizen, exploded the delusire cry about the pauper labor of Eu ropo, illustrated what American industry necded, and concludod by showing that the pretentious demands of tho protectionists entirely ignorud tho oijual rights of all othor classes, especially agriculture ik1 other unproteotodpursuits. Hopaid his raspects to the freo toa and coffeo delusiou ip this wisc. Speaking of the du ty on eoffoe he said : " Bnt tlie iraportation of coffce during the calendar year 1871 was 321,086,707 pounds, equal to eight and a quarter pouuds for each person in the country. Tho tot:il importation is cstirrettcd at (3y,7'2J,O17 in gold, and the duty por pound is 'i cents, boing loss than 30 pur Cent. nii viiloieui ; and it paid to the Trcasury (9,830,601, It therefore cost the conklitners por capita u. trifle less than 25 cents, and did notcompol them to pay a ycuuy t ) monopoly, ft is a rovenue tax, jiure aml siraplo, costs the peoplo what it pa,ys tUe govtruraoat, builas up no stupendous fortune at tho expenso of tbo peoplo, fostors no corrupt corporation or rings, and bars the door against uo competition. Then why reduce it, or where can yon ubtuiii L9,650,601 II revonnothat will cost the peoplc less? No where. Not ia the whole list of taxablo articleg, whether cf doux'stic or foreign production, The peoplo aro entitled to havo tbeir taxes cost them the least pos9Ïble íl!ii. Of tho duty on tea, he said: Let t%i tftitP another subjoct of tazation for comparispn In tho calendar year 1871 tho unportatfon OÍ tea was 50,622,045 pounds, oqual to. one md s half poundf per capita, and tho duty is fifteoii cents jjerpouwd yielding in revenae ($,,943,321, bo that the average cost of this duty per oapita is just tweoiy-two and ahalïcpnts apd eery dollar ij costs. tho people it pays tho Treasnrv, It ts jMiro rovenue, ■with not a cent for protection, saonopolies, rings, fayorites, or tariff--fad robbers. Thore is no possthilitjr of imposing any tariff t.x that will pay so iuuch in oveouo aa l cost kss to tlio people. It buüds up no ill-gotten fortunos or powori'ul oorporations, and does not expcl competí tion nor viólate tke law of fair play. It isimpossible to iuipose a protective d-rty on toa or coffeo. Thcro is no domostio producer of them to protect, henee tlie Protoctionists want theiu free ; they want 110 tariif taxos iinposod that will not pay them. as much or more than thcy jmy the treasury."