Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1890-10-08
Senator Carlisle, of Kentucky, on the
Tariff Bill.

Senator Carlisle, OF kentucky, on the
Tariff Bill.
On Tuesday of last week, Sept. 30th,
Senator Carlisle, of Kentucky, made q
speech in the Senate on the Tariff Bill
which, as reported in the Baltimore Sun.
was as follows -
"The conference report on the tariff bill
was then taken up, and MIR. Carlisle ad-
dressed the Senate. He would not, he
said, attempt to discuss the economic
theory of the bill. 1t was now about to
pass entirely from the hands of the Senate
and beyond its control, and a. discussion of
the question could not bs undertaken with
out neglecting the last opportunity to state
as accurately as possible what the main
provisions of the measure were and what
would be its probable effect on tsxation.-
1t was not his purpose to attempt to state
the effect of the measure on the public
revenue, because it would be impossible to
do so with any degree of accuracy. But
he could state approximately what its eff
feet on taxation would be.
In the statement made by the finance
committee when the bill was reported the
reduction of revenue had been given as
$71, ,O0O, 900 under the House bill and $780,
600, 900 under the Senate bill. Of the $780,
OOO 600 reduction (from articles placed on
the free list) nearly $56, 900, 900 came from
sugar and molassas, leaving only between
four and five millions as the reduction oc-
casioned by the removal of other articles
from the dutiable list. He asserted that
the bill as it now stood excepting sugar
and molasses) removed from the free list
and placed on the dutiable list more than
it took from the dutiable list and placed on
the free list. He also asserted that the
bill would reduce the revenues and increase
the taxation: that while it would not in-
crease the revenues, it would increase the
taxation of the people very many times the
amount by increasing the prices of the
articles of similar domestic production. If
it were true that the revenue that would
be derived under the conference bill Con
the basis of the importations of 1880
would be over 1925, 100000, then the
average rate of duty on dutiable articles
would be 81 7-10 per cent, without taking
into account the effect of the ninth section
of the administrative bill, which would add
from four to five per cent. Unless all his
calculations were at fault, the average rate
of duty under the conference bill and the
administrative bill on dutiable articles
would be sixty per cent. instead of 453 per
cent. under existing law. If the Senator
from Rhode Island would take the articles
now on the dutiable liss and deduct sugar
and molasses from them he would find that
the average rate of duty under existing
law was little over Al per cent, while
the average ratio of duty on the same ar
ticles under the conference bill would be
sixty per cent.
Mr.. Carlisle went on to give figures as to
the increased taxation under the conference
bill, stating it to be in the iron and steel
schedule ten millions, in the woolen
schedule fourteen millions, in the cotton
schedule two millions, in the fax and linen
schedule five millions, on tin-plate $8. 1885,
900, and on tin in pigs or bars 81 ,357, 600.
THE EFFECT OF THE BILL.
No man, he said, could predict what the
effect of that enormous increase of tax
alton would be, nor could any man predict
precisely what its effect would be on the
revenues of the government. All that
they knew was that the very purpose-the
sole purpose and object-of such increased
taxation on these necessary articles was to
increase the price of domestic products, SO
as to enable new industries to be estab.
lished in some cases, and to enable, in
profits But, in order to compeI safe for
that enormous increase of taxation on the
tools and implements Of trade, and on cot
ton, wooden and linen clothing, tax oi
two cents pound (amounting to $5, $780,.
OOO) was to be taken off tobacco. The re.
moval of that tax would relieve no mar
and be beneficial to nobody except the
manufacturers and retailers of tobacco
who would divide that two cents between
them. No producer of tobacco and ne
consumer of tobacco would be benefited tt
the extent of one mill. Coming to thu
question of the bounty on sugar, II cent.
per pound or sugar polarizing up to 80 PEE
cent. and two cents on sugar polarizins
over 80 per cent, he said that that bounty
would amount, on the basis of the presen
production, to between seven and eigh
millions year. This was the first time
he said, in the history of the country tha
it was proposed to pay out of the public
treasury bounty to domestic producer
But no part of the bounty, he asserted
would be paid to the grower Of tho beet o.
sorghum or cane; every dollar Of it would
go to the sugar manufacturer. 1t nigh
be said, however, that the producer wonlt
receive q higher price tor his produce :