The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1890-10-17

: about 81 per cent. al valorem. being -
! increase Of per cent. over the former
rate. The Miils bill. being the bouss
bill of the last congress. placed wool Cd
1.-The free list. The average rate or duty
under the late tarid, aud on I'll classes
or wooden goois. according % the senate
financial committee. was 81 per cent. "a
v4iore,n. while under the Mckinley bill:
according 20 tho same authority, ie
amounts 10 ?; per cent. ~ vsiorem, BE-
ing On increase OF g per cent You sei
from this. that while the increase on
wool Il only per cent. il u ~ per cent.
on the manufactures OF wool. On the
ofhcr hand. The Mills bill plscsd the
.duty on 81 manufactures OF wool at %
per cent. MI vainrem being 27 per cent.
less than tie old law, and 81 per cent.
less than the McKinlev bill. But ehis
wss not alI Tic difference: neither tba
Ioid law nor the Mckinley bill confined
1.-The duties Imposed 10 the III valorena
rate. but iD addition, imposed = pound
ltsx, and 50 adjusted II a. 10 place tho
.highest tax upon the cheapest goods and
in this respect, the Mckinley bin is much
more onercus than the old law. Tho
%
ETC., and AL manufactures Of wool, etc.
valnsd u mt exceeding 81 cents per
.pound, should pay duty Of 35 cents per
pound and IS per cent. I'd vsiorem !.
valued ~ above 80 cents per pound. IS
cents per pound and - per cent. nd Va
ioreu- In the Mckinley bill IL IL pro-
lyiird that on all wooden and w0rseed
cloths. ETC.. and manufactures Of every
description. made wholly Or in part Of
wool. and valued at not more than 80
cents per pound. tho duty shall be three
times the duty upon unwa-hed wool,
that Il 80 ceria per pound, aud in Aldi-
!ti0n thereto. 40 per cent per pound I'd
vaIorem valued At more than 80 cents
|per pound. anil not more than 20 cents
per pound. three and . halt times tko
duty on raw wool aud ~ per cent. "a
vaiorem: valued At above 40 cents per
pound, fonr times the duty imposed on
nnwashei wool. and 50 per cont. "a W
lorem. Under the Last ciause aIl manu-
farsnves of wool. or Of which wool form6
u part. above the value Of 20 cents per.
pound, are 20 ray . ponnd duty Of -
sents per pound. reducing the msximum
from 90 cents per pound under The old
law. 10 10 cents per pound. % enat ~
Igoods manufactured ii whole o. q part
from wool. and worth over - ccn1s pog
Ipound mast pay tne hIxh dnty.
A. ooor1y ~ Hoodo Of ohie cIna1 1e ~
|woaE 1ro worth moro lhan - ocn1o ~
'|pouod. g oveope h evovy(1InG - ~
Iclothing IIno; ond = tho tsx lDeko6 ~
Idis1inclion bofwocn the co&eoo aid u
lime goods the sax falls most heavily %
Ithc coarse article For instance. : yard
lof common Melton or Chevioe cloth.
double width. which IN the Londo1
market would be worth 50 cents Per
Iysrd. will weigh Two pounds 20 The yard;
and the pound tax on it urdsr this Nc
Kinley bill will ba IS cents per yard,
while yard Of fine English or French
brosdclosh. worth S. yard. or upward.
will weigh one and a-hsIf pounds 70 The
Iyard, AMI the pound tx upon u will
Ionly Be So cents per yard. or % cents
Iper yard less than The coarse article
l0r. n discriminate between persona. the
ipound tax on the poor mans coat d -
cents per yard, while Il j. only So cents
lper ward on the rich mans coat.
\ Under the Mills bill each would havo
Ito pay 40 per cent I'd valorem and no
more. That j.. the poor mans coat
ould have had % pay tx eqnal 20 50
cents per yard. and the rich mans coat
tax equal 10 81 per yard.
| The same unjust liberalization runn
Through the entire schedule Of wooden
goods: 90 that the poor mans under
wear. made partly of wool and partly Of
cotton, worth, say dollar and . halt
'Isuit. pays the same tax per pound ss the
'irich mans underwear. manufactured
from the finest lambs wool OF camel's
Ihsir. worth from 81 10 $40 suit. In
This connection may note the fact that
neither the old law nor the Mckinley
bill require that wool shall form the
ARTICLE Of CHIEF value in the compo>itiOn
of the goods. but The language u made
wholly or in part Of WOOL So that the
cheap goods Of cotton And wool mixed.
however small the proportion OF wool
may b. pays the same pound tax = IL ke
were Ill wool.
4 To sum up the whole matter, I wish
Ito show you the effect the Mckinley bill
would have produced on our imports %
last year IL II had then been ia forco.
\ according 20 the treasury statistics, our
imports ot wool and wooden goods fDr
1.-THE fiscal year ending June 30. 1850,
lsm0unied % 81. l.I53 600; the duty cOls
iIecled on the same under the old law
amounted 10 e4l. .379 900. The amount
THAT would have been collected under
the Mckinley bill would have been e55.-
S56 OoO. being An excess over the amount
collected under the old law Of S1s f77.-
900 Under the Mills bill the amount
would have been $2l OF. .oUO. or Ies6
than the amount actually collected by
80. 600. and e3s "a |. 90 lee than the
am0ont that would have been collected
Iunder the Mckinley bill That Il, the
lconsumers would have had shst much
lees % pay II The Mills bill had become
Ilsw.
Nov, want you farmers, Democrats
land Republicans to answer q tue polls
whether the Mckinley biil u sn honest
Law. and which of these systems Of taxa
.tion you prefer. The one. she demo-
cratic system. tsx-s ~ article sccOrdiog
-. 80. -.