working people, and a high duty upon fine goods, such as silks, satins, fine cloths, wines, brandies and jewelry-in a word, high duties on luxuries and a low duty on necessaries. I think if Mr. Sloan ever goes to Congress, he will have to take a lesson from some of the leaders of his party before he will be considered sound on the tariff question.

Mr. Martin-A friend of mine has just returned from Europe and he has brought three suits of clothes as nice as any man would wish to wear. They cost him in England $14 a suit. They ask $45 here for the same suit of clothes. Is it free trade that has done that?

Sen. Anderson - I have seen a fine suit of clothes bought in this city for $18 and there was 75 per cent. duty on that kind of clothing.

Mr. Martin-That might be under peculiar circumstances or might be shoddy. These gentlemen know as well as you and I what clothing costs. You can get a suit of nice black clothing for $45 and from that to $55 and $60. You can get the same suit made up in England for $14 or $15. What is it that makes the difference?

Sen. Anderson-Suppose you had no tailors here, would not England bring clothing here and put up the price as they did on iron?

Mr. Martin-Now don't go to iron. You spoke of tailors and clothiers and they show us what duty we pay. I have no objection to a duty on silks and velvets and wines, but I want ordinary, useful articles to come untaxed. Ask them why they charge so much, and they say it is the duty. We pay as much for duty as we do for the clothing in England, Prof. Parkinson- I want to enter my protest against the address that has been read here to-day, or at least against the fallacies contained in it. Having been a farmer a good share of my life I feel an interest in farmers and farmers' work. It seems to me that the gentleman in reply to Mr. Sloan has answered himself. Duties laid upon imported goods are for the purpose of raising the price of goods manufactured in the importing country. If they do not do it there is no protection. If they do, the consumer has to pay the tax in the end. I do not care whether ten or ninety per cent. of our products are exported, if the tariff raises the

price of imported goods it raises the price also of like goods manufactured in the country and those who use both have to pay the tax. Whether the increase be less, equal to, or greater than the tariff is not vital to the question at issue. The consumer has to foot the bill finally, with compound interest added.

Sen. Anderson - In opposition to the opinion of the professor I will state that Mr. Bismarck, of Prussia, a gentleman who is considered to have some experience and understands things, says he favors a protective duty because the importer pays the duty at the line.

Prof. Parkinson - It seems to me that the gentleman has answered himself as far as that argument is concerned. The argument is a felo de se.

In citing Prince Bismarck, Sen. Anderson means either something or nothing. If he means anything it is to array Bismarck on the side of a protective duty, on the ground that the importer pays the tax once for all, and that the price is not enhanced. Bismarck knows, and the Senator knows, that the importer really does no such thing. They know that a protective tariff proper is laid for the very purpose of enhancing the price, and that if it fails of this, it fails of the very end for which it was enacted. A tariff which, like our own, is laid upon nearly four thousand articles, fails to protect at all in the highest sense, but it fails for a very different reason from that assigned above. Bismarck is literally right. The importer "pays the duty at the line." Who disputes it? But he knows, and everybody knows who stops to think, that the duty is charged up with interest to the consumer and that the price of every article that comes in competition may be advanced accordingly. Any argument to the contrary, I repeat, is self-destructive.

But I want to go back a moment to the beginning of the gentleman's paper. Some statements were made there which have been overlooked. They seemed to have an effect upon the audience when made and merit a little attention. We were told that our annual revenue from all sources amounts to some four hundred millions, and that something more than one half of it is collected from duties on imports. Three-fifths of it in round numbers is so col

lected. Do you want to do away with the import duty, he asks, and have this tax levied directly upon you? But the constitution tells you, he says, that a direct tax must be levied according to population. Now there is just enough of truth here to deceive the unwary, but not enough, I feel sure, to have much effect upon this audience.

I want to say right here that every dollar necessary for the support of the government can be raised without affording any so-called protection whatever. And to accomplish this there is no necessity of doing away with import duties either. A strictly revenue tariff is entirely feasible. This I have attempted to show to the Senator more than once in conversation, and I think I was understood.

Sen. Anderson - How can you raise it?

Prof. Parkinson - Before answering that question I want to ask you what you mean by a direct tax in the connection in which you used it in the outset of your paper?

Sen. Anderson-I mean a direct tax laid on property, real and personal. A direct tax is laid on the people payable in gold and each state has to pay in proportion to population. Therefore a poor western state would pay as much as a rich state of the same population.

Prof. Parkinson - In other words a direct tax is a direct tax, which is just no answer at all. Are you not aware that the supreme court has decided that question and stated clearly what a direct tax is, in the constitutional sense? Let me ask you whether the late income tax was a direct or an indirect one?

Sen. Anderson-Not being a lawyer I do not know. I thought it was an indirect tax because it depended on the business a man was engaged in and the amount of his income. Prof. Parkinson-It was levied on the people of the country was it not?

Sen. Anderson- I think a direct tax would be a tax levied on the state, and the state would have to pay according to population and that tax, paid in cash, would go into the national treasury. A tax on real and personal property is a direct tax.

Prof. Parkinson- I wanted to know if the gentleman understood what was meant by a direct tax, in the sense in

which that word is used in the constitution, and if he did, why he said that if we did not raise the tax for the support of the government through an import duty we would be obliged to tax the people of the country directly according to population in the state. He either did not understand a direct tax, or he knew that he was deceiving, one or the other. I do not think he meant to deceive. I think that he did not know what the courts have decided on this question. The expression, "direct tax," is used in two senses- the one broad and general, the other narrow and specific. In the first sense it applies to a tax which, in the words of John Stuart Mill, is "demanded from the very persons who, it is intended or desired, should pay it," in distinction from the indirect tax which is "demanded from one person in the expectation and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another." In this broad sense the income tax and the ordinary property tax are direct, while excise and customs duties are indirect. The income tax has never been levied by the government "according to population," and many kinds of property tax need not be, as the supreme court has repeatedly held. But in the second and narrow sense, as used by the framers of the constitution, a direct tax is one on land or other real estate, and poll or capitation taxes. This is the well settled construction of the courts. Direct taxes in this sense only, must be proportioned to population. But to argue that if import duties should be discarded a thing which no one advocates - our sole resort must be to direct taxation, leaving the expression undefined, is to be guilty of the fallacy of equivocation or of begging the question, or perhaps of both.

As I have said, we could not only collect four hundred millions, but more, without protecting a single industry. And why not? A protective tariff proper, and a revenue tariff proper, are antagonistic in their very nature. Protection is enjoyed only so far as we tend to keep competing goods out of the country, revenue is received only as they are allowed to come in. Both protection and revenue may be obtained under the the same tariff, but it is an extravagant way to reach either end. Revenue does not come

from a tariff by reason of its protective features, but in spite of them.

The present high rates of duty-averaging nearly 45 per cent.- were never necessary for revenue, and are an outrage upon the country. They were fastened upon us at the close of the war under the plea of necessity and have been continued by cunning manipulation. The Morrell tariff was born in deceit and has been perpetuated in iniquity.

The time has come when these duties should be lowered, and the people are rapidly coming to realize it. If we could have these discussions all over the country they would soon rise in their might and not petition for, but demand a change. I would not remove all protection at once, because it would disturb our industries unduly, but I would begin to remove it at once, and continue the process gradually and discreetly, until every vestige should disappear. Then the once protected and unprotected would alike soon bless the hand that removed the shackles and left commerce unfettered and free.

But how about the revenue for the support of the government? Lower the duties and the revenue need not be diminished. On many articles it would be greatly increased. Let a tariff be levied on all imported articles which we can never profitably raise or manufacture, and every dollar of the burden above the expense of collecting would go to the treasury. Let duties be laid also, as high as necessary, upon articles in the nature of luxuries and stimulants, offsetting these, to avoid protection, by an excise tax, as is now done in the case of wines, liquors and tobacco. If need be, a light tax could be continued upon other imports, balancing the same by a corresponding excise duty.

In short let the tariff be for revenue only, and the amount raised may be made to suit the demands of the government. The principle is plain. The details must be wrought out by wise legislation. And this will come of honest study, candid discussion, and careful experiment. No one expects a tariff upon a strict revenue basis to be launched upon the country at once. The vital point is that the people should come to recognize its correctness in principle, and should resolve to begin the work of securing its practical realization.