The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-06-24

and declares its advocacy Of a twenty
per cent protection under the American
system"
Mr.. Kcnna's reasoning is very bud,
besides his statements are false. David
II. Mason, OF Chicago, writing to the Iron
and STEEL Bulletin in regard to the state
ment that the Mills bill "leaves an aver
age tariff OF 10 per cent on our COMPETE
tive manufacturing industries, reducing
IT only 7per cent, F" completely explodes
the Senator's position. Mr.. Mason says;
Here the average percentage Of tariff
collected on dutiSble imports is dogmat-
ically set up as the standard and test Of
protective force in any schedule OF du-
Ties. No position could be more falla-
cious, misleading, unfounded, worthless
because fatty cOntradicted by frequent
experience. For instance, one OF the
most disastrous tariffs in our history was
the compromise act OF 1888. Under its
periodic reductions, moving toward q
rate not TO exceed 20 per cent. from and
after June 10, 1912, the average percent.
Sge OF duties on net imports Of dutiahlG
articles, MS published by the United
States Bureau Of Statistics, was, in the
several fiscal years, as follows:
4O.lg per cent 10 1881. 3l,77 per cent in isl9.
IO.3S per cent In 1885, $3.50 per cent In 1870.
8i.gi per cent IN 1879. S,.6G per cent in 1871.
2!.ls per cent 10 by. 2jsl per cent In lSi2'
Il.S5 per cent In ls,ls,
Let it be noticed that, under a tariff
which was followed by an industrial ant
financial collapsed tariff which empti
ed the national Golfers, bankruptet
States, and filed the whole land will
distress-the average import rate on du
table merchandise was, in three Of The
wears, greater than the average claimed
rs the ample protection-the direct pro
tection-leit in the Mills bill, after allit
changes from the present law. Further
let It be observed that the average rat
collected under the disastrous measure
OF 1893 was, in 1888, after three.tenths o
the duties had been taken of, highe
than after only one.tenth had beer
taken of in 1884.
On the other hand, no tariff in on
history has exceeded in protective fore
the famous act of 1879. Prompt an,
marvellous reCuperation, industrial, com
merciai, financial, followed its passage
yet in four fiscal years under its opera
ton the average percentage o., duties OF
net imports is dutiable articles was u
given below:
per cent cent fl II H. s5 per per cent cent In s s
Now, according to the test set up tn
ruinOus tariff OF 1888 should have muCl
surpassed the prospecting tariff OF 1874
in protective force, contrary to the fact
And the average rate OF Abb per cen
in 1888, when industry and bushes
were wrecks, should have been, If JUDI
ed by the same false standard, far NOR
protective in effect than the average rat
under the two Protective tariffs passe
in 1861, that rate having been 3G.2 pc
cent; yet, as an established fact, til
higher percentage was concurrent wit
general paralysis, while the lower pc
centage accompanied general activity.
These historical comparisons shoul
make it plain, beyond doubt to ever
reader, that an average tariff rate ca
not be, in itself, any correct or just mea
ure OF the protection exerted, or to b
exerted, by given schedule OF dutie
Indeed, it is full time to call halt
this laundering and dangerous use
statistics.