New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-02-17
MIR MORRISONS LATEST.

There will be abundant opportunity for
criticism of the details of Mr.. MOrrison's tariff
hereafter and in his bill there is no lack OF oc-
cason for such criticism. But 1t seems proper
at the outset to consider the measure in its
broader aspects 1t is a bill for which no
reasonable excuse can be offered The country
needs no such change CT duties. 1t is not an
honest measure Professedly designed to cut
down the revenue, it would probably increase
the revenue if passed professedly framed to
simplify the tariff, it would make the law far
more complicated and confused. 1t introduces
AN element of confusion and controversy, which
would lead to much litigation, in providing
that many important changes shall be IN
operative as to imports from countries which
impose duties on exports. 1t introduces an
other and exceedingly mischievous cause of
confusion. uncertainty and litigation, IN pro-
v;ding that certain specified duties shall not
be enforced if they exceed certain per cent
ad valOrem. 1t reduces a great many duties
each a little not enough to serve any useful
purpose from free trade point OF view, ana
yet enough to make the tariff less effective or
wholly ineffective for the defence of home IN
dustries. 1t is utterly and ridiculously I'M
scientific, in retaining determinations intended
for protection, while cutting down the rates
Just enough to defeat the only object of such
determinations. 1t places on the free list the
products of sDme important industries, which
would thereby be Frustrated with most dlsas-
trous results to labor.
The pretence that this bill would simplify the
tariff is too shallow for serious discussion. As
to large class of articles, it would have the
following effect: There are now specific duties
on different qualities and quantities OF articles
in those classes, and the only question Tor I'M
porters, for customs Officials, or for tho courts,
is whether given article is OF the quality de-
fined; if so, the duty is now so much per
pound, or per yard, or per gallon. But the
proposed bill would require, nrst, an inyestI-
CATION of the laws of foreign countries to as
certain whether any duty on exports Is I'M
posed and second, an invest igation OF our laws
to ascertain whether any duty on exports that
may be imposed by such county is sufficient to
put into effect the proviso of the proposed bill,
or whether that proviso would be vitalized only
by export duties on the same articles; and
third, an investigation of the market prices in
foreign countries to ascertain whether the
specific duty would exceed certain percentage
of the foreign cost. This is Democratic sim
III Mt. hlOIIISOlI VI Douy 'loC uu-
dertakes to defend this abominally complicated
mess of conflicting duties, he will have lively
time of it in Congress and before the people.
The Free Traders have every reason to OPP
pose such bill, because it recognizes and con-
tinues a host of Determinations which exist
only for the purpose of protecting home indus
tries. But Protectonists have equal reason to
oppose it, because they want no duties which
merely burden the people, but do moi suffice to
build up competing industries here and thus to
give the people ultimately cheaper home sup
ply. OF all conceivable tariffs, such tariff as
the one proposed would be the worst. 1t is as
if Mr.. Morrison had deliberately tried to i'm
pose the maximum of burdens with the mini
mum of resulting benefits. The bill ought to
be promptly kicked into the waste basket by
the unanimous votes of sincere Free Traders and
sincere Protectionists, as equally offensive to
both.