New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-09-06
NNO P1IS DEIIEN.

"Reduction Of taxes cries Mr. AlcAlillin
at Jersey City " everybody wants lighter tax
atom Here is the old deception again, which
has served Democratic leaders well enough in
the backwoods, where a sparse population suf-
fcrs few political masters to cast and count
the votes and they imagine it will serve equal
~ well in Northern cities, where every audi
ence is mainly composed Of Wagc-earners who
read newspapers moro or less. The Demo
cratic blunder which threatens to prove fatal
is precisely this: Democratic leaders suppose
that voters have not sense enough to ask
whether consumers or importers pay the duties
on imports.
An official document has Just been issued by
the House Committee on v avs and Means Of
which Mr.. McNIilln is member, containing
an estimate Of the reduction in duties by the
Mills bill In brief, il states that schedules
under which about S32 900, 900 were paid in
1857 are not affected at all that articles which
paid Sl9,17 ,599 81 in duties are placed on
the free lists and that duties on other articles
are so reduced that, instead Of SIG, 81 g.
549 43 in duties. they would pay only
$4,000, 9O7 OF. This, 1t is calculated, is an
ing dutabe, which now pay an average OF
CASH per cent. These are Democratic fig
ures, and nobody can afford to be responsible
for their accuracy, but they show decrease Of
1856 in the percentage or more than one
quarter Of the rate OF duty on articles which
are and would remain dulabe.
But the WOriIingmcn are sensible enough TO
see that even this statement is deceptive. For
it omts from reckoning entirely the value Of
articles now dutiablc, but which the bill places
on the free list of which the value imported
in 1887 was 81 3,O736l. With these the
value Of all articles affected by the bill was
$4,000, 000 and the duties paid 81 &c.
0O0 600, or 54.4 per cent of the value but the
proposed duties. according to the Democratic
figures. would be only $3.50 900, or 3l.G
per cent of the value, so that more than one
third Of the present rate of duty on dutiablc
articles affected by the bill, or to be exact,
1874 per cent Of the duties on all these art-
cles, would be removed by the bill. Thus the
tabled 81 per cent rcduction,' Of which Mr..
Mills has said so much, is proved by the official
figures of his own committee to be reduction
Of more than onc-third in the rate of duty on
articles affected
MessrS. Mills and McMillin both take it for
granted that the people Of this country pay the
whole Of these duties, and would pay about
$4,000. 600 less if the bill should become
law. The truth is that the people Of this c0un-
try pay only pant of these duties: a part not
precisely ascertanablc but nevertheless only
a part as every business man knows. The
advance in foreign prices Of articles from which
il is proposed to remove duties shows that the
people would not get the full benefit of any
reduction. and that foreigners would begin by
taking all Of it they could through an advance
in prices How much the people would actual
~ save in amount Of duties paid no one can
definitely state. But one thing is certain the
bill would depress or PROSTATE home industries
which yield to the people many times $50
600, 900 yearly in production Of wealth and
would compel this country to pay tribute 10
foreigners instead. On the greatly increased
importations the duties would yield revenue
even at the lower rate, nearly if not quite as
large as the amount now paid on dulable i'm
ports Bat meanwhile the country would have