Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-07-19
A Tariff Catechisn,,

The letter given herewith reached the
HERALD office on Monday night. 1t
is the production of citizen who evil
IDENTIFY thinks, and it runs as follows
Los ANGELES, Cal, July 16, 1888.
EDITORS HERALD--As the articles published
in the daily papers on the advantages and dis
advantages of the tariff ms Ike such broad ssser-
tious without giving authorities to prove their
a few questions, which trust you will candidly
reply to. / am after information, and am
neither free trader or protectionist, not pos
sessing the necessary Information on the sub
ject to make nae either one or the other. So far
as have been able to inform myself see ad-
yantages and disadvantages on either side, and
if you will enlighten me to the best of your
ability you will be doing good act
Trade?
ports into the United States?
3. What average reduction does the
Mills bill make?
A. What is the proportion of persons en-
gagged in manufacturing industries OF all kinds
to those engaged in agricultural pursuits?
8. What is the .proportionate value OF all
manufactures (that is capital inyestedl to the
capital invested in agricultural interests?
6. What portion of the protective tariff
goes to the laborer and what to the owners OF
Z. Is not the price of wheat and other
cereals made in a foreign market, and not In
this country?
C..
wages in the United States than in England?
Germany? France? Italy?
8. Are these four countries protection or
10. AT the rate the debt is now being re-
| duced how long will it take to pay it orr
| IL. After the debt is paid in full what is
| to be done with the revenue?
IL. Is it fact that the present tariff is
| higher than the preceding one?
| These are few of the questions that come TO
me in studying this interesting question and
votes intelligently must be well-informed.
trust you will answer the fore
going questions with such remarks as you may
j. w. CooMBs.
| A duplicate of the above was sent to the Times
| on July 9TH, but as they hsve not published any
| reply judge they have had difficulty IN find
| ing suitable answers to my questions. Willyou
! kindly reply to them.
The questions herewith submitted We
have numbered above, and the answers
will be numbered to correspond with the
questions. In reply we say this:
1. The Mills bill does not advocate
Free Trade. Confning our inquiry at
the present to our own country we find
some articles are admitted free OF duty
and in other imports there is a duty i'm
posed. Let us give few examples
Altar of roses free, castor oil 180 per
cent duty; neroli, or orange-fower oil
free, window glass 81 per cent. duty.
Other articles pay light rate Of duty and
still another list is heavily dutied.
For example: Diamonds pay 10 per
cent duty and steel rails S5
per cent; the best still wines pay 20 per
cent and horseshoe nails 116 per cent !;
pate de foie gras pays % per cent, and
wooden stockings pay 73 per cent duty.
The Mills bill merely proposed consid-
crate readjustment of the tariff such as
will stop the accumulation of surplus
revenue in the Treasury and at the same
time make luxuries bear more Of the
burdens of taxation, and make the
necessaries of life bear less. In other
words the Mills bill seeks
to make the rich bear a greater
proportion Of the taxes and the
poor bear less. The New York Christian
Union accurately outlines the difference
of policy in the two great national par
ties. 1t thus places in parallel columns
the contrasting propositions OF the Re-
publican and Democratic platforms:
DEMOCRATS REPUBIICANs