New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-10-15
----s-aa-aa-------sa.-H =--------
TARIFF PEDTCTJON.

Mr.. Blaine at Evansville Saturday night con-
victed Mr.. Mills and his party of attempting to
deceive the people. With justice he claimed
that the Republican party had shown the man
illness to advocate truthfully and candidy the
policy which it favored, while Mr.. Mills and
his friends. after denouncing "the robber
tariff for months, are now engaged in trying
to prove that the Mills bill would rob- within
per cent as much as the present tariff.
These persons give the voters too little credit
for common senses If Mr.. Mills tells the truth,
how can robbery of AZ per cent be con-
doned by the very men who have been shrek
ing about a robbery Of AZ per cent? If he
tells the truth, what sense is there in disturb
ing industries with general change of tariff
for difference so insignificant? Mr.. Mills is
perfectly aware, and his friends are perfectly
aware, that they are only trying to deceive
voters And they would serve their own cause
far more effectively if they recognized the fact
that the voters are quite aware of it also.
Of Just the same character is the cheap crit
icism of the Senates Tariff bill. to which some
Democratic newspapers think it smart to re-
sort Here is a decrease of revenue proposed
by the Senate, they say that is confession
that the tariff is too high. A newspaper has a.
poor opinion of the intelligence of its readers
if it supposes they do not know that the differ
ence between the Senate and the House, be-
tween the Republican and the Democratic par
ties, is not whether revenue should be reduced
but whether duties which are not protective
should be cut down or duties which are pro-
tectve. If newspapers are ignorant of this
the voters who are able to earn the cost of a
daily newspaper are not.
When Mr.. Blaine showed that the duties on
sugar, liquors and silks, which were not orig
inaly designed for protection, cover eighty
one millions of the existing revenue from Gus
toms. leaving only one hundred and thirty one
millions, he might have gone even further
The duties on tobacco yield over nine millions
and were intended for revenue exclusively :;
so were the duties on precious stones which
Weld a million, and the duties on fancy arti-
cles which yield three millions, and the duties
on cotton laces and embroderies which yield
two millions, and the duty on clocks and
watches which yields half million. Others
amounting to about ten millions more in the
aggregate could be named, which are levied on
IuAullcS, anu are lUltHucu loi Ic'chuC an" HOe
for protection. 1t is not with regard to these
duties, amounting in all to one hundred and
six millions or half the entire customs revenue,
that the controversy RACES. The question is
whether duties of the other class, which yield
only about half the revenue, should be removed
OF reduced; if it were certain that this could
not be done both parties would at once agree
to reduction of the duties levied for revenue.
Now the protective half Of the tariff, so to
speak, yields about 81 06, 100000 in duties,
and Mr. Mills could cut down those duties
about S38 900, 600, or about SO per cent More
than one-third of all the duties intended for
protection Mr. Millss bill would sweep away
at once, and he would be entirely justified in
this if his argument that the tariff enhanced
the cost of domestic products were sound or
if his denunciations Of the =" robber tariff were
truthful or reasonable. But it is proof of in
sincerity and of cowardce when Mr.. Mills and
his party, after all their dcnuncatiOns and
arguments, 90 before the people pretending
that their tariff reduces duties only per cent,
or 5 per cent, or that it alters in no material
respect the protection now provided for home
industry