The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1888-10-04
rHR MILLa ERAnD.

THE MILLS FRAU II.
The following expose of the lying
statements of democrats concerning the
amount of per centage of reduction Of
the tariff by the Mills bill, speaks for
itself. 1t is from the pen Of ex-Gov-
ernor George L. Anthony in the Otta-
wa Republican, and to those enough in
terested in the political situation to
wade through its figures, will prove q
bonanza OF information:
The Ottawa Herald does not now
claim that the Mills bill only shows q
reduction of All per cent, but it makes
the following statement IN answer to
our claims that the per cent of the re-
duction proposed is 1885.
1--WE did not know that Kansas had
a man who could calculate what reduc-
ton of the tariff the Mills bill would
make if it became a law. 1t took the
statistlcians at Washington more than
four weeks to make the estimated re-
duction for the ways and means COM
mittee."
1--WE did not pretend to calculate what
the proposed reduction was, or would
be. Roger q. Mills said, in the house,
that his bill would reduce the import
duties collected $50, 59l 1886. The fig
ures are his, not ours. and for argu
ment's sake we admitted their correct
ness, although neither Mills nor his
committee can tell what reduction
there actually will be if the bill ever
becomes law. BuG Mills having fixed
the amount of reduction at $50, sol 1886,
any republican school boy in the eighth
grade at the common school can tell
the per centage of reduction.
The question is one of simple ele-
mentary arithmetic. In 1887 the du-
ties collected on imported goods
amounted to S2l2, O32 ,424. Mills says
his bill will reduce the duty collected
$50. 59l 1886 mills may be wrong. very
likely he is, but that is his claim.
Now then, what per cent of S212, 032, :
424 is $50, SOL $3.50? 1hat is all there is
to it. We stated, an no arithmetician
can prove it otherwise, that the true
| answer is twenty thee and eighty-siX-
hundredths per cent (23.S6l. This
"high-falutin" talk about mathemat-
les, government statisticians, ETC.. is
only democratic dust TO blind the
reader to the simple question OF per
centage.
But let us leave the odd figures and
see in round numbers what per cent of
200 millions so millions is. The an.
swer is 25 per cent. Close enough fol
all practical purposes.
Streeter, the u. l.. candidate, had q
good laugh at the democratic claim OF
only 4.6I per cent reduction. He
showed it up in this way: Call it 3 pei
cent, aud take it off the 200 millions by
fives, until the 80 millions reduction
proposed by Mills is exhausted. OnC
| five gives us ten millions only; the
second five another ten; the third five
ten more; the fourth five another ten
and the fifth five makes up the fifty
millions proposed. Wehave exhausted
the proposed reduction of fifty millions
but we have only used up % per cent
doing it. What about the remaining
/ 75?
Let us leave Mills own figures anC
take the tabulated results appended Il
the published Mills bill by the govern
ment statistician, for the use of Mills
committee.
They select certain dutiable goods
and say, duty amounting to SIG, 313 81
was collected on them, and the averayt
rate per cent was 64.S4.
In another column they show tina
the proposed reduction will reduce
these figures to $50, SOC, 1907, making thu
average rate per cent 1923 instead o
64.S4. These are their figures.
Would the Herald please tell it,
| W ldD ulllCLOLCC OCO"CCL
64.84 and 1928 is? We make it 1875
per cent.
Taking Mills figures we made tina
part of the reduction only IA 54 pc
cent, but taking the govern nent sta
tistician's" figures, it goes two per cen
better, or 1856.
On the same page, and in the sam
table appended to the Mills bill, thu
government statistician" again says
there is further reduction of ''dutie
RENTED by free trade list" Sl9, 773, 500
This gives us further per centage o
9.32.
These two items of reduction addet
together, we make total per centag
af 1888, which is a greater reductiCn b
two per cent, than Mills own figure
make it. His give 1886, the commit
tees give 25.SS.
The Herald says the reductions, b
placing goods on the free list SHOULD
not be calculated. Why not? Suppos
the democrats had got to complete fire.
trade in four years, as the Herald advo
Gated year ago, and proposed to put a
importations on the free list, and rails
the revenue by direct tax, AS Hai
pole advocates. Would there hav
been no reduction of percentage at all
The fallacy Of democratic reasonin
on this subject might be shown by til
following illustration, On import
say, class A averages 80 per cent, b 81
G so, d 40 and E 80.
The total duty averages 20 per Ger
and the amount collected was 5000, GOO
600. Let us presume that democrac
proposes to reduce clase y to as pt
cent, hut the ether four classes. Il.
ID ami l.. are To he put upon lie i,t
al [.
This would leave the dutiable good
66 per cent and the Herald, we SUI
pose would sneeringly cry, lis p'
cent reduction free trade?' Certainl,
in estimating the reduction the amour
placed upon free trade list must
3 calculated to get correct results.
No matter how you turn this que!
tion up or around, the answ er to ''whi
per cent of 500. 000. 900 is $50, 000, 00Oi
5 will always be % per cent. Or rever!
3 it, ''25 per cent of 800 zoo, 000?" an
> the true answer will be $50, 900, 900, I'll
amount Mills says his bill will reduI
: the duties collected.
Horizontal Bill Morrison and Rog
q. Mills of Texas understand each al
correctly interpret the wishes of Il
: solid south in going for straight
;, per cent reduction the very first whaG
. by the Morrison Horizontal bill ar
I 25 per cent on the Mills bills.
+ The cry raised by the democra
Y that l.. u. Humphrey was engage
g in the banking business was squelchI