Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1888-10-04

his bill reduces the average rate OF duty
on dutiable goods only 4.61 per cent,
the amount of duty RENTED by his bill
would be only $685.. 695 As. however,
the ostensible object of his bill is to re-
duce the revenue surplus of the country,
of what avail would the reduction of
sum of less than $4,000, 900 be when he
claims that the revenue should be re-
duced about $50. 000, 600? If Mr. Mills
statement of the percentage OF reduction
in duties were correct his bill would not
be worthy OF the slightest consideration
as revenue reduction measure.
But Mr. Mills has also distinctly sisted
that his bill. If passed, would reduce the
revenue from customs by $50 .591, 636,
basing his calculations on the dutabe,
imports of 1887. namely $3.50. 325. 322.
Assuming that this result would follow
the passage of his bill then, as our GUS
toms revenue in 1887 amounted to S212,-
032, 424, it would be reduced under his
bill to S161. 440, 7SS. This would be a re-
duction Of 81 Sc per cent. instead of 4 81
per cant.
To please the few who, protest against
the protective principle OF our tariff sys-
tenn, Mr.. Mills says that his bill would
reduce our large surplus revenue from
customs by over $50, 900, 900, and to
hoodwink the great body of our people
who believe in adequate protection TO
home industry, he declares that his bill
would reduce duties on dutiable goods
an average only of 81 per cent.
Mr.. Mills duplicity may be exposed
in another way. He totally suppresses
the fact that, having made large addi-
tons by his bill from the present dutia-
BILE list to the free list the present dutia-
BILE list is affected by the articles made
free of duty as we'll as by the articles on
which the duty is simply reduced. The
foreign value of the dutiable articles i'm
ported in the fiscal year 1887 was $3.50,
$50. 1922, and the duty collected was S212.
OBJ, 424, making the average ad valorem
rate on dutiable articles 47.10 per cent
| By reducing the rates one some of these
articles and making others wholly free
of duty, Mr.. Mills RENTS duties amount
| ing in the -.grrgate, as he states, to
| $50, 591, 636. Hence, the average rate of
duty on articles which are now dutiable
would be reduced by his bill from AZ. 10
per cent. to 80. 81 per cent, which is a
| reduction of nearly one-fourth, or of
nearly % per cent, as we have already
demonstrated What protection would
this average rate afford to our manufac-
turers and workingmen against foreign
| competition while wages in nearly all
American industries are from 90 to 10e
per cent. higher than the wages paid in
similar industries abroad, and when it is
well known that about so per cent. of
the value of all products is made up of
wages paid to labor?
Mr.. Mills, in common with many 9TH
ers, in his criticism of our present tariff
suppresses the fact that although the
average rate of duty on dutiable goods
was Al 10 per cent. in the fiscal yexr
| 1887. the average rate of duty on all the
importations Of that year, both free and
dutiable, was only 81 per cent. He en-
tires ignores the important fact that I'M
der the present tariff the people of this
| country now receive absolutely free of
| duty many products of foreign countries
which do not compete with our own
products. such as tea and coffee. If Mr..
Mills bill should become a law the aver
age rate of duty on all imported goods,
both free and dutlable, would be reduced
to less than "a per cent. on the basis of
last years importations. In making
this reduction, largely by additions to
the free list, the industries of the coun-
try which require protection would Sc
verely suffer. Our present free list, on
the contrary. harms no domestic indus
| try.-BuIIetiaa Of the american Iron snd
Steel association.