The Dalles daily chronicle. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1890-1948, 1891-10-17
THE M'KLNLEY BILL.

When the Mckinley bill was being
discussed last year, the main argument
against it was that it would restrict our
foreign trade; that the levying of in
creased protective duties would keep out
foreign goods and that, as a result, for
eigners would buy less of our agricultural
and manufactured products. This was
the argument and the public was asked
to wait and see if results did not justify
it. Now, as to the results: The official
statement issued by the bureau of statis-
tics at Washington. comparing exports
and imports for the seven months ended
July 81, 1891, under the operations of
the Mckinley bill, with the correspond
ing seven months of 1890 under the
operations of the old tariff law, has just
been printed. Figures are dry reading
but it is necessary to understand them
in order to comprehend results and we
ask our readers impartlally to review
the figures and base their own judgment
upon them. They show that during the
seven months ended July 81, 1891, under
the Mckinley bill, this scountry imported
S1l ,O00, 900 more of merchandise than
during the corresponding seven months
of the preceding year under the opera
tions of the old tariff law. During the
seven months of this year fifty per cent,
or enc half of the merchandise imported
was admitted free of duty; while during
the corresponding seven months of 1890,
under the tariff law, only thirty-three
per cent. of the total imports was ad-
mitted free of duty. So that the Nc
Kinley bill during the seven months of
its operation for which we have official
statistics, resulted in increasing the vol
lume of imports by $11 100000 and ad-
uniting seventeen per cent. more of for
ssign imports free of duty than were ad
mitted under the operations of the
former tariff bill. Are these statements
denied? Foreign trade, SO far as i'm
poets were concerned, was increased.
How was it with our export trade? The
passage of the Mckinley. bill, it was said
.wa1ld not only cut down our. imports,
but would also cut down our exports,
because foreign nations would only buy
from US if we bought from them? Off
clal IlSuESS lOI IIS SCNCll
toned show that during that period in
1891 ths exports of domestic merchan-
disc were increased by over $4,000 900
beyond those of the corresponding seven
> slaouaths in 800 under the operations of
zshe old law. None can dispute these
figures. They prove that the Mckinley
bill has not injured American trade
with foreign countries. On the other
hand, little more than half a years
experience with the Mckinley bill has
Increased our foreign trade nearly forty
three and half million dollars over
what it was during the corresponding
period while the old tariff law was in
operation. We have said before that
partisanship should not be mixed up
with the discussion of the tariff ques-
tion. We should all be good enough
Americans to support any policy which
helps our business interests, no matter
whether or not there is a partisan out
cry against it. The results of the Nc
Kinley bill justify the arguments in its
favor. If they had beeu otherwise we
should not have hesitated to say so.-
Frank LesIie's.