Newspaper Page Text
WILSON VS. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES AB
SURDITIES OF THE DINGLEY BILL.
It Is “the Most Ultra Protectire Tariff
Krer Proposed’*—-Will Uncouragc Trusts
and DiKourat* American Labor —Makes
Some Serious Reflections Upon the .Mc-
Kinley IXIII as a Revenue Producer.
Ex-Postmaster General William L.
Wilson is credited with the authorship
of the tariff bill now in force. His
hands were tied so that he could not
make the bill nearly as good as he de
sired to make it, and the bill as finally
passed was not nearly as good as when
it first passed the house. It was, how
ever, a great improvement upon the Mc-
Kinley bill and is a model as compared
with the Dingley monstrosity. We
quote the following from Mr. Wilson's
of the McKinley and Dingley
bills in a recent number of the New
York Herald:
These bills are so nearly identical in
general structuie and particular items,
excepting as to the sugar scht dule, that
it may be well to consider the effect of
the first billon the revenue of the coun
try. Both bills are vast and voluminous
schemes of class taxation, the production
of public revenue b' ing an incident and
entirely subordinate to the purpose of
taxing all the American people for the
benefit of a small part of the people.
The protectionist has but one remedy,
which he applies whether the revenue
be redundant or deficient. If times are
prosperous and more money than is
needed pours into the treasury, he in
creases taxes by a scheme that turns
the larger part of their avails into pri
vate pockets, and this reducts public
revenue. If times are depressed and less
money than is needed pours into the
treasury, ho seizes the pretext of in
creasing public revenues by adding
enormously to the amount of private ex
action.
The act of 1890, whatever its other
effects, did reduce revenue. From a
large surplus it swept us headlong to a
deficiency, although it weighted the
people with heavier taxes and although
another law, passed in July, 1890,
turned into the treasury as a part of the
general assets to be used for paying ex
penditures a trust fund of more than
|154,000,000 which belonged to the na
tional banks and had always been held
for the redemption of their notes.
Even before the Harrison administra
tion ended we should have been con
fronted with a largo deficiency but for
the use of this trust fund and the fur
ther fact that Secretary Foster, by a
change of bookkeeping, added to the
treasury balance $20,000,000 of token
and subsidiary coin not before treated
as a treasury asset. With these extraor
dinary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 30, 1893, with a sur
plus of only $2,341,674 as against a
• *r>v the fiscal year June 30,
1890, of over $85,00n,w0 iu
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
were touched. And during the fiscal
year ended June 30, 1894, through all
of which the McKinley bill was in force,
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
the amount of $09,803,260, notwith
standing the fact that the expenditures
of the government were $15,952,674
less than in the preceding year.
This statement shows how absurd and
groundless is the claim constantly made
by the protectionists that recent deficits
in revenue are due to the substitution
of the existing tariff for the McKinley
bill. Nothing is more certain than that
if the bill had been in force during the
last three years the annual deficit would
have been immensely swollen, while the
people in a season of depression and
hard times would have staggered under
much heavier burdens of taxation. Even
in this disastrous period, customs duties
under the existing law have increased
from less than $132,000,000 in 1894,
the last year of the McKinley bill, to
even $152,000,000 in I to over
$160,000,000 in 1896.
In the sugar schedule alone the bal
ance in favor of the existing law is
about $55,000,000. The customs reve
nue reached nearly $40,000,000, scarce
ly any of which would have been re
ceivable under the McKinley bill.
- That the Dingley bill, present condi
tions considered, is the most ultra pro
tective tariff ever proposed to be enact
ed in this country plainly appears from
Diugley’s statement that if
levied on the importations of the last
fiscal year it would have increased the
revenue $112,000,000 —that is to say, it
would have gathered from an importa
tion of $775,724,264 of imported mer
chandise the enormous sum of $272,-
000,000, which is nearly $50,000,000
more than any customs revenue ever
collected in one year in this country in
the past And to say that its rates will
probably check dutiable imports to the
extent of reducing the estimate to $70,-
000,000 is only another way «f saying
that to that extent such rates are pro
hibitory.
American consumers are shut in the
home market to be preyed upon by com
binations and trusts without possibili
ty of relief from outside competition.
Such combinations, by joining to keep
up prices and to curtail production,
wage more merciless war against the
employment, the opportunities and the
compensation of American labor than
any possible competition from abroad
could da
The falling off of importations under
the present law dispels the illusion
that the American laborer is anywhere
deprived of employment by the impor
tation of foreign products. The gratify
ing increase in our exports of manufac
tures is equally strong proof that those
laws are helping us to enter and com
mand new markets, which means not
only larger employment, for our arti
sans, but more home consumers for our
farmers.
In the new tariff bill spunk is on the
free list We have our opinion of a man
who is compelled to use imported
•‘gjunk. ’’—Philadelphia Call.
WOOLEN MANUFACTURERS
URGE MODERATION.
Admit That Hieh Duties and Consequent
High Prices Will Restrict the Use of
Woolens.
Some of the severest criticisms not
only of special duties and clauses, but
j of the whole accursed protective sys
i tern, come from the protected manufac-
L turers themst Ives in their struggle with
j opposing interests. Mr. S. N. D. North,
retary of the Woolen Manufacturers’
As.-ociation, is now and always has been
a stanch protectionist. As such he be
lieves that the 70,000,000 consumers of
this country are legitimate subjects for
' plunder and that the manufacturers
are the proper persons to enjoy the pro
; tection plunder.
The free wool experiment which we
i have been trying for three years, besides
| being an object lesson in the way of
I cheap woolens, has taught the woolen
' manufacturers that they can make as
I much or more profit with free wool and
j moderate protection, which permits peo
ple of moderate means to wear real ;
woolen goods, than with high duties on
both wool and woolens, which restricts ,
the use of woolens to people in good cir
cumstances. The manufacturers there
fore display more than their usual mod
esty and patriotism in the advice which
they are giving to congress. Mr. North
is n Washington to voice the manufac
turers’ patriotism. Here is part of his
advice as taken from the Washington
correspondence of The Dry Goods Econ
omist:
I am free to say the bill is far from satisfac
tory to the woolen manufacturers. The chief
fault is to be found with the raw wool duties,
which are so high that our manufacturers will
fiiu'. themselves sorely embarrassed. It is true
th? commitiee has provided compensatory
duties which are probably sufficient to offset
the duties on raw wool, but the difficulty will
be, in my opinion, that the very considerable
increase in price which must be made to cover
the additional cost of raw material will have
the effect of cutting down consumption to an
ext ’nt that will be disastrous to the manufac
tut-jrs. I do not contend that the rates on
woolen manufactures in the bill are not suffi
cient to protect us against too severe foreign
competition, but the limit of the consumer’s
pur -basing power must control him in buying
wo >len manufactures, and I fear the rates of
the new bill will very materially restrict con
sumption.
This is practically saying to Dingley,
AI, rich and the other servants of the .
protected manufacturers at Washington:
“Go slow with your high duties and
don’t try to protect too many. If you
let everybody into the protection ring,
there will be nobody outside to prey
upon and we will have to prey upon
each other. Don’t make the mistake of
taxing raw materials too high. We
wouldn’t mind it if we could sell cur
goods and charge the tax over to the
consumer. But when the tax is so high
that we have to make our prices almost
out of sight we have found that we can
not sell so many goods, because the peo
ple can’t afford to wear clothes—that
is, woolen clothes, which are the only
ones worth considering because they are '
the only ones which we manufacture.
Our solicitude for the dear American
consumer is such that we do not wish
to compel him to clothe himself in the
P DO YOU WANT
'h : TAXES
t I INCREASED?
I orhoti.
1 RSfOW
i PWft-fW
1
' HA 1 ai ur
skins of beasts, which are neither fash
ionable nor healthful. Let us not tax
bin. to death. Let us be reasonable and
encourage him fc live and to wear
clotlies. By so doing we can Keep our
mil’s running and give employment to
American workingmen at American
wages, which, after all, is the chief ob
ject aimed at by us protected manufac
turers. ” —Byron W. Holt.
The Protectionist Performance.
The following is a part of ex-Con
gxcEsman John De Witt Warner’s criti
cism of the Dingley bill:
“As it stands the most brilliant part
of the pending performance consists in
| eating the words of the same actors in
the Fifty-first congress. The McKinley |
bill of that date was virtually entitled
‘a bill to reduce revenues. ’ The Dingley
bill is specially commended as a revenue
gett r. The McKinley bill pointed with
prida to the poor man’s free breakfast
| table. The Dingley bill puts upon sugar
—a ingle item of the breakfast table—
one-third of the total amount of the
tari ’ tax proposed. The items which
are supposed to help th<? farmer are good
examples of so setting your trap as to
, ‘coteh ’em a-cumin and a-gwine. ’ For
instance, we have reciprocity in order
to g ve the farmers a market abroad for
■ whac it is assumed they cannot produce
I for home consumption unless they are
high'y protected, as is done by another
section of the bill.”
Senator Sherman at His Best.
Every advance toward, a free ex
change of commodities is an advance in
civilization. Every obstruction to a free
exchange is born of the same narrow,
despotic spirit which planted castles up
on the Rhine to plunder peaceful com
merce. Every obstruction to commerce
is a tax upon consumption. Every facil
ity to a tree exchange cheapens commod
ities, increases trade and population
and promotes civilization.—John Sher
man in 1868.
„ The Beef Trust’s Tithe.
If congress can advance the prr< of
hides 2 cents a pound in this couaay,
the people will pay several millions a
year more than they do now for their
boots and shoes, and the money will gc
into the pockets of the Beef trust.—
i Hartford Times.
SAME OLD CHESTNUTS. I
By making the foreigners contribute from SISO,OCO,CX) to $200,000,000 an
nually to get into our market ice enable our own people to run their business at a
profit.—American Economist, Organ of Protective Tariff League, March 26. 1897.
fIR l . /| I
JI O $ fei -L , /
li Lu teu.SJKEAW /
ll' Ihi IsF /
Uncle Sam: “Say, D’ngley, you might as well comedown. You’re not
getting any chestnuts, and you’re not fooling voters. McKinley had some ex
perience up that tree —it's a horse chestnut —in 1890. He pretended that he
was making the foreigner pay the tax, but he soon found out what the peo
ple thought of him and his bill. The bulk of Americans are both honest
and intelligent. The intelligent voter knows that you can’t make the foreigner
pay his taxes, and the honest voter prefers to pay bis own taxes. Y T ou can never
make your bill popular by such tomfoolery.”
Champ Clark’s Wit.
Champ Clark of Missouri is not only
one of the wittiest men in the house of
representatives, hut he is one of the
best posted on the tariff question.
In ridiculing some of the rates of the
Dingley bill that to him seemed subject
to criticism, he recited how a man of
the name of Goodyear went before the |
ways and means committee and secured
the tariff he w anted by some skillful
palaver about the great statesmen that
Maine had produced. Then he said:
“Mr. Chairman, that piece of ‘soft
soap’ made it harder for every poor
man in the United States to build a
house. Governor Dingley swallowed the
bait as quick as a trout would swallow
a fly [laughter], and next summer some
poor devil out west, living in a dugout
100 miles from a railroad station, who
voted for McKinley under the deluded
idea that prosperity would come under
his administration and who has not
heard of this tariff bill, ciphers it out j
that he can build him a two room cot- ,
tage with lumber and other building
materials at. the old rate. He goes to the
station to get the lumber and finds thflF
the price has gone sky high, and
back to his home and says tn his wii®' s ’/
‘My dear, I am s'sjrry that we must stay j
in the dugout. >va cannot build our lit
tle house. A man by the name of
Governor has put the price of
lumber and other things so high that
we cannot do it, but, thank God, ho
has left dragon’s blood free. ’ [Laughter. ]
Next year, -when my handsome friend
from lowa (Mr. Dolliver) returns to
that fine agricultural district which ho
represents, some man who has not been
able to buy a coat because of the high
price of woolen cloth will say to his
neighbor, ‘There comes Dolliver, who
put up the price of woolen goods. ’ But
the successful candidate for the post
office in that district says, ‘Oh, but Dol
liver put divi-divi on the free list!’
And in chorus they sing, ‘Dolliver and
divi-divi forever.’” [Laughter. Ap
plause on the Democratic side. ]
Why Increase the Coal Duty?
Under the existing tariff bituminous
coal pays 40 cents a ton. The Dingley
bill proposes to make this 75 cents. In
1895-6 the imports of bituminous coal
into the United States were 1,243,835
tons. The exports were 2,246,284. The
figures for Canada were: Imported from
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, etc.,
123,404 tons; from Quebec, Ontario,
etc., 39,987; from British Columbia,
627,257; exports to these three divisions
respectively, 413 tons, 1,671,302 and
3,094. Canada now proposes in case the
Dingley rate is imposed to retaliate by
a high duty on our coal, which will
certainly not stimulate exports. Hero
is an export business worth twice as
much as the corresponding import busi
ness, and it is proposed to run the risk
of ruining the former for the sake of
screwing $350,000 taxes out of the lat
ter, and this on the plea of reviving
American industry. Can any sane man
fail to see that, even assuming that
imports do not fall off, it is hardly
worth while for the sake of a paltry
$350,000 to tempt Canada into ruining
an established busin-ss nearly twice as
large as that which is to yield the tax?
Yet this is the way in which “the old
thing works. ”
The Protection Umbrella.
/'7 1 #1
%
7 77- -z;W
S3I
■ | r -■ ‘
v i». '*'
Punctures the Theory.
The opposition of the protected inter
J3ts of Massachusetts to a duty on hide*
looks like an abandonment of the favor
ite protectionist theory that ‘'me for*
■signer pays the tax.”
Blaine Opposed a Duty on Hides.
The following letter from Secretary
of State James G. Blaine in 1890 is
supposed to have had great weight with
the ways and means committee:
April 10, 1890.
Dear Mr. McKinley—lt is a great mistake
to take hides from tho free list, where thej
have been for so many years. It is a slap in
the face to the South Americans, with whom
we are trying to enlarge our trade. It will
benefit the f irmer by adding 5 to 8 per cent tc
the price of his children's shoes. It will yield
a profit to the butcher only, the last man tliat
needs it. The movement is injudicious from
beginning to end, in every form and phase.
Pray stop it before it sees light. Such move
ments as this for protection will protect the
Republican jwirty into a speedy retirement.
Yours hastily, James G. Blaine.
Hon. William McKinley, Chairman Ways and
Means.
Where is the Blaine this year who
can head off the westerners who want
their share of protection and foolishly
imagine that they can get it by a duty
on hides? It is perfectly consistent with
the protection system to tax hides, es
pecially as the bulk of the tax would
probably go to a few monopoly butch
ers and ranchmen. But observe some or
the effects upon our industries:
The importations of untaxed hides
and skins last year were valued at $20,-
216,528. The goatskins were valued at
The former were mostly
into sole leather, beltings
h like heavy material, for which
our »yative hides are not thick enough.
The jgoatskins are not produced in this
country.
From this raw material we not only
manufacture Loots, shoes and leather
goods for our own people cheaper and
better than they are made elsewhere in
the world, but we exported finished
products of the value of $20,242,756.
Without free and cheap raw material
tlfls export trade would have been im j
possible, and our own people, as Mr.
Blaine pointed out, would be compelled
to pay more for their footwear. The
wages paid to our workers in leathef
last year amounted to $25,542,166.
Protecting the Few Woolgrowers.
Suppose the Dingley duties on wool
would give the woolgrowers all the
protection claimed and that the price
of wool would actually go up the full
amount of the duty, which, of course,
is absurd. What would be the effect up
on the country at large?
Mr. Edward Atkinson, statistician,
estimates the annual wool product at
$55,000,000 out of a total of $13,200,-
000,000 produced by all the workers of
the country and the persons dependent
on the wool industry at 300,000 out of
a total population of 73,000,000. The
wool duty then means that out of every
240 persons 239 are to be “held up” for
the benefit of the other one. This is a
sample of what protection does. Os
course more than 300,000 persons may
sometimes raise a few sheep, but the
interests of these others are more those
of the consumer than of the sheep raiser,
and they would lose more because of in
creased cost of woolens than they would
gain by the increased price of wool.
The protective tariff system is a farce
when considered in connection with the
farmer oi' the workingman. Will they
ever fully appreciate it?
An Odious Tax.
The tin plate makers wish to boom
their business by increasing the duty
on imported tin plate, to the injury of
the canning industry and other indus
tries that flourish by reason of cheap
tin plate. Another blow is struck at
business by abolishing the rebate on ex
ported tin cans. Now canned goods ex
ported in cans made of imported tin are
allowed a drawback of the duty paid,
and thus an export business has been
built up in canned fruits, oysters, vege
tables, petroleum, etc. Over 4,000,000
tin cans are sent abroad annually, con
taining oil which competes with that of
Russia. When Russia can buy tin plate
at $2.70 a box, while we have to pay
$3.50 for it, it is evident that our com
petition will be rendered difficult. Mr.
Dingley robs Peter to pay Paul.—Balti
more Sun.
Why We Shiver.
It is true that woolen clothing, un
derwear and blankets will be out of the
reach of people of moderate means when
Dingley has his way, but just think
how sweet it is to suffer for one’s coun
try and to shiver in order that the rob
ber Larons may continue to wax fat
and contribute to the “legitimate” ex
penses of the g. o. p!—Louisville Post.
THE TARIFF ON CUTLERY.
Why the Trust Can Dictate Such Out
rageously High Duties.
One of the worst schedules in the
Dingley bill is that relating to cutlery
—especially pocket cutlery. The duties
on pocketknives range from 100 per
cent to 300 per cent above present du
ties and are nearly double those in the
McKinley bill. Why, you will ask, are
these duties so extraordinarily high?
And they allowed to remain
there? Both questions are easily an
swered.
It is unnecessary here to go into de
tails. Befoie McKinley's nomination
one of the five or six large manufactur
ers of pocket cutlery, who was prom
inent in the trust, which raised prices
an average of about 35 per cent under
the McKinley bill, began to hustle for
McKinley. He is said to have raised a
large sum of money by passing the hat
among the 20 or 25 cutlery manufactur
ers. Just how the money was spent is
not known. It is probable, however,
that several McKinley delegates to St.
Louis owed their presence there to this
fund. The hat passer himself was one
of the very few delegates from New
York who was for McKinley first, last
and all the time. He was one of Han
na’s most trusted lieutenants. One of
the two favors which he is said to have
asked as compensation for his valuable
services was the fixing of the cutlery
schedule. This privilege, being au ordi
nary and expected one under the protec
tion system, was readily granted by the
power behind the throne. This is prob
ably the whole story. It explains fully
why tho duties are there and why they
will stay there.
Below is given in detail some of the
effects of the proposed duties as applied
to importations for the last fiscal year.
Os course but few knives will be im
ported under such exorbitant duties.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE.
First.—All pocket knives not costing more
than 43 cents :i dozen, 85 per cent ad valorem.
Second. —Costing mote than4ocents a dozen,
1 blade, 20 per cent ad valorem and 50 cents a
dozen.
Third.—Costing more than 43 cents a dozen,
2 blade, 20 per cent ad valorem and SI a dozen.
(If pearl or shell, 50 cents a dozen extra.)
Fourth. —Costing more than 43 cents a dozen,
3 blade, 20 per cent ad valorem and 51.50 a
dozen.
Fifth.—Costing more than 40 cents a dozen, 4
blades or more, 20 per cent ad valor em and $2
a dozen.
(If pearl or shell, 75 cents a dozen extra on 3
and 4 blades.)
Calculation showing result based on importa
tions for fiscal year 1816: All knives costing 40
cents per dozen and less:
296,000 dozen, average price, 26 cents; value,
$76,960; 35 per cent.
Knives costing over 40 cents per dozen:
48,003 dozen, 1 blade, average price, 60 cents;
value, $28,800; at 20 per cent and 50 cents a
dozen; duty, $29,760.
392,000 dozen, 2 blade, average price, $1.03;
value, $403,760; at 20 per cent and $1 a dozen;
duty, $472,752.
277,000 dozen, 3 blade, average price, $1.27;
value, $351,790; at 20 per cent and $1.50 a dozen;
duty, $485,858.
254,000 dozen, 4 blade, average price, $1.73;
value, $439,420; at 20 percent and $2 per dozen;
duty, $595,884.
Total value, $1,223,770; total duty, $1,584,254;
129% per cent.
Estimated that of 2, I) and 4 blade 25 per cent
arc of pearl or shell, adding duty as follows:
98,000 dozen, 2 Made, at 5-oc. $19,000
69,250 dozen, 3blade, at 75c. 50,438
63,500 dozen, 4 blade, at 75c. 47,025
$1,740,317 —142% p. c.
RESULT.
Knives to the value of 0 per cent of importa
tions, duty would be 85 per cent.
Knives to the value off 4 per cent of impor
tations, duty would be 142% per cent.
The duty on pocket cutlery for some years
prior to 1860 was 24 per eent ad valorem.
From 1860 t o 1690 it was 50 per cent ad va
lorem, with the exceptions of a short time
during that period when it was 45 per cent ad
valorem.
The McKinley tariff averaged about 91 per
cent ad valorem.
The Wilson tariff averaged about 51 per cent
ad valorem.
The proposed Dingley tariff will average,
based on the importations of 1896, 142% per
cent ad valorem on 94 per cent of all knives
imported during that year.
The equivalent ad valorem duties on the fol
lowing popular description ol knives, under
tho McKinley bill, Wilson bill and proposed
Dingley bill, are as follows:
McKin- Wilson Ding
ley bill. bill, ley bill.
P. C. P. c. P. c.
2 blade jackknives that re-
tail at 25 cents 112 56 145
2 blade pearl ladies’ knives
that retail at 25 cents 112 56 195
2 blade pearl ladies’ knives
that retail at 53 cents 83 51 120
3 blade penknives, not pearl
or shell, that retail at 50
cents 83 51 120
8 blade penknives, pearl or
shell,that retail at 50 cents S 3 51 170
4 blade penknives, not pearl
or shell, that retail at 53
cents 83 51 160
4 blade penknives, pearl er
shell,that retail at 53 cents 83 51 204
Hit the Wrong Party.
Jackson’s Protection Prophecy.
The corporations and wealthy indi
viduals who are engaged in large man
ufacturing establishments desire a high
tariff to increase their gains. Design
ing politicians will support it to concil
iate their favor and to obtain the means
for profuse expenditure for the purpose
of purchasing influence in other quar
ters. Do not allow yourselves, my fel
low citizens, to be misled in this sub
ject. It is a system of injustice, and if
persisted in will had to corruption and
must end in ruin.—Andrew Jackson in
His Farewell Address.
A Great Democratic Harmonizer.
“The Dingley bill has done more in
three days to reconstruct and strengthen
the Democratic party than all the har
moniJiers and conciliators and managers
could have done in a year,” the Balti
more News (Dem.) says.
A Wonderful rill.
Uncle Sam —Why, doctor, that looks
like the pill McKinley gave me to re
duce my revenue.
Dr. Dingley—Yes, its ingredients are
practically the same, though perhaps
they are somewhat stronger.
U. S.—But you say this is to increase
my revenue. How can it work both
ways?
Dr. L\—lt’s a protection and prosper
ity pill ?uid will produce any effect de
sired. Li’s an infallible cure for any
and alllisval and industrial ills. If tak-
® nF
en in sufficiently largo quantities, it
will keep all foreign germs out of your
system and leave you happy, prosperous
and—
U. S. —Hold on there, doctor! You’ve
said enough to convince me that, like
all advertised panaceas, it’s a quack
remedy. Besides, I’ve tried it and found
it about the nastiest dose I ever took.
It’s effects were also bad—very bad. It
deranged my whole system and filled it
so full of trust germs that I’ve been laid
up ever since. I don’t want any more
of your “protection” pills and don’t
see why they called a protection doc Vir
again. It must have been by mistake.
Women’s Dress Cioods Will Come High,
The extremely high duties which
Dingley proposes to collect from wom
en’s dress goods should be. more gener
ally understood by the, women of this
country. It is they who must suffer
most because of these duties. Here aro
a few samples of the increased duties
taken from a list prepared by Mr. P. B.
Worrall of the dress goods importing
firm of Fred Butterfield & Co. of New
York:
“A wool and cotton cloth costing in
England Is. per yard, equal to 24 cents
in our money, weighing 16 ounces to
the running yard, costs under the pres
ent tariff 33.6 cents per yard, while un
der the proposed tariff it would cost
G7 8-16 cents per yard.
“A wool and cotton cloth costing in
England 2s. 4d. per yard, equal to 56
cents in our money, weighing 28 ounces
to the running yard, and costing under
the present tariff 78.4 cents per yard,
would under the proposed tariff cost
$1.4858 per yard.
“An all worsted cloth, costing in
England 2s. Id. per yard, equal to 50
cents in cur money, weighing 16 ounces
to the rfinning yard, and costing under
the present tariff 70 cents per yard,
would cost under tho proposed tariff
$1.298 per yard.
“A 32 inch black serge (cotton
warp), costing in England 7 5-Bd. per
yard, equal in our money to 15.25 cents,
weighing less than 4 ounces to tho
square yard, costs under the present tar
iff 22.87 cents per yard. Under the pro
posed tariff it will cost 30.07 cents per
yard.
“A 27 inch black sicilienne (cotton
warp), costing in England 7 7-Bd. per
yard, equal to 15.75 cents in our mon
ey, weighing 3.7 ounces to the running
yard, costs under tho present tariff
23.62 cents per yard. Under the pro
posed tariff it will cost 33.92 cents per
yard.
Iniquitous Dumber Tariff.
“Tho proposed tariff on lumber,” tho
Boston Transcript (Rep.) says, “is sim
ply a measure to pick the pockets and
crush the industry of a large, useful and
influential class of American citizens.
It is uneconomic, unscientific, suicidal.
The statements upon which this schedule
was made up are shown to have been
insidious and misleading. Tho result
will be to strip the country not of an
annually recurring income, but of its
white pine principal, which at present
rates is within ten years of exhaustion,
and also to ruin a large class of business
men iv this •country who deserve better
things. It does not seem possible that
men claiming to represent tne people
will permit such a measure to have the
force of law. If they do, it will cease
to be folly and become iniquity.”
Fooling the Farmer.
Sample taxes from the Dingley bill,
with comparisons showing the over
whelming foreign competition to which
the farmer is subjected and what pro
tection the ways and means committee
regards as indispensable:
Imports to Experts from
Duty, United Suites. United States.
Dingley bill. 181X5. 181X5.
Barley, 80c. per Lu. 837,384 bu 7,680,331 bu
Corn, 15c. per bu.. 4,338 bu 99,992,835 bu
Oats, 15c. per bn.. 47,51X5 bu 13,012,590 bu
Rye, 10c. per bu... 154 bu 988,466 bu
Wheat, 25c. per Lu. 2,110,530 bu 60,653,080 bu
Flour, 25c. ad val.. 1,394 bbls 14,620,864 bbls
Butter, Cc. per lb.. 52,067 lbs 19,373,913 lbs
Potatoes,2sc p. bu.. 175,243 bu 130,049 bu
Total value es th‘- c exports during
the fiscal year 1596 7..... $139,923,632
Total value imports 1,861,\53
Admits Prices Will Be Higher.
With regard to Chairman Dingley’»
admission that the duty on wool will
increase the price of wool, the Ksasqs
City Times says: “The consumer anti
not the foreigner, therefore, pays the
tariff tax. It concedes also that the
home producer puts up his prices arbi
trarily. Mr. Dinglcy’s own words are a
confession that the Dingley bill is a
fraud and a robbery of the people for
the benefit of the few individuals and
corporation?. ”
The most retroactive feature of the
Ding’- y bill is the provision for paying
tack to the big manufacturers their cam
paign contributions.