OCR Text |
Show Itfvriiun TarltT nud Priitei-tlvn Turin". I' very once in u while somo Pree-trado, ass gets up on his liiud legs and brays liko this: "Tho Leader lias frequent rejoicings over tho fact that tuigar will be cheaper after April 1, because the tariff on it has been taken oil. As that paper has always contended that the tariff is not n tax, no diagram of its fr'lf inflicted joke seems U necessary.". Tho Leader, liko every other Protectionist, Protec-tionist, has uniformly maintained that tho tariff on h.tirar or any other article wo do not adequately produce is a tax, as much a tax as tho internal revenue tax on tobacco. A Protective tariff that is to say, tarilf which creates and maintains tho production of any article in this country in amount approximating tho domestic, demand is not a tax in any true sense, as we have a thousand times explained. Tha tarilf on sugar was not a Protective tariff. It was a tariff for revenue only, and that is why tho Fiee-I i-adors insisted upon preserving it. A tariff for revenue only is admittedly a tax. Every ijoily agrees to thai. A Protective tariff is not a tax. The man who cannot seo any difference bet ween the t wo things is just what wo have characterized hi in in the opening sentence of those few remarks, Cleveland Leader. |