Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1891-11-18
Some Striking Figures.


same eleven months of 1SS9-90. Then,
what becomes of the Democratic asser-
ton that protection diminishes the for
eign trade?
During these eleven months the por-
ton of merchandise admitted free of
duty was 47.7S per cent. of the whole,
as against 1927 per cent. during the
same period of the year prior. Then
what becomes of the Democratic asser-
ton that the Mckinley bill "raised the
duties all along the line ?"
Since sugar was put on the free list
and until August 81, 1891, period of
of merchandise was $3.50, 725, 209, of
which 5000, 533, 497, or 1910 per cent,
was admitted free of duty. The Demo-
cratic Mills bill proposed to admit free
only 40 per cent.
For the full year ending September
SO, 1890, under the old tariff the receipts
from customs were $237 ,69S, 492. 45. For
the full year ending September 80, 1891,
under the new tariff, the receipts from
customs were $196 1902, O66. 96, decrease
of SAL 1896, 425. 40 ! Then, what becomes
of the Democratic prediction that the
Mckinley bill would increase taxation
and swell the so-called surplus?
The customs revenue during the last
year under the old tariff was $3.50 per
head of population. During the first
year under the new tariff it is $3.07
The exact per capita reduction of Gus
toms revenue is 70 cents. If, therefore,
the tariff is tax, it is now Just - cents
less tax than it was before the Nc
Kinley bill went into effect.
During the eleven months ending
August 81, 1891, under the new tariff.
our exports of merchandise were $49,-
OS9, 1923 greater than during the same
period of the year before. This is near
ly two and half times greater than the
average annual increase during the
twenty years prior to 1891. Then, what
becomes of the Democratic assertion
that protection diminishes the export
trade, and shuts us out of the worlds
markets?
During the month of August, 1890,
our exports of agricultural goods
amounted to $50, 74S, $50 or 64.54 per
cent. of our total exports. During the
same month of this year they amounted
to $51, 74S, 432, or 72.45 per cent. of the
whole. Our exports of manufactures,
on the other hand, during August 1890,
we're $l4 ,24S, 799, or 25. 70 per cent. of all,
while during the same month of this is
year they were $14, 75S, SOL, or only 20.66
per cent. of the whole. Then, what be-
comes of the Democratic assertion that
protection aiGs manufacturing interests
only and Injuries those of agriculture?
Since the reciprocity treaty with BRA
zil went into effect on April l last, and
until August 81, our exports to that
country amounted to $6,303, 1S2, an in
crease over the same period of last year
of 81, 1853, 592. And yet the Democratic
convention of New York t1ippantly
pronounced reciprocity 'humbug ~
The price of granulated sugar in Sep
TENDER, 1891, was 4$ cents a pound, as
against IS cents during September, 1890.
The free sugar clause of the Mckinley
bill means to the people of the United
States saving of not less than $75, 000,
900.
The price of cotton cloth in Septem-
Der, 1891, was 81 cents yard, as against
81 cents in September, 1890; of printed
cottons, 6 cents, as against 81; of iron
nails, $3.50 per 100 pounds, as against
$I.S5; of steel nails, $1.S5, as against
sos; of steel rails, $30.77 per ton. as
against 31.50; of binders Irvine ian av-
erage of four grades), s Lie cents a
pound, as against l244 cents; of Bessemer
pig IRON $16 ton, as against $3.50; of
cut nails, $1.o5 per 100 pounds, as
against S1.S5; of middling cotton, per
pound, S.54 cents, as against 1917.
Then what becomes of the Democratic
lie about the Mckinley bill having raised
racy won the congressional campaign
year ago?
The validity of the Mckinley law is at
present before the supreme court for
argument. One of the points made by
the importers is that the reciprocity
clause is unconstitutional, and that the
entire law is vitiated thereby. The
point made by their counsel, which is
backed up eagerly by the Democratic
papers, is that the reciprocity provision
is an unlawful delegation Of legislative
power to the President-that it is giving
him authority to decide alters specified
lime whether certain named articles
imported from a certain class Of coun-
tries shall continue to be duty-free as at
present, or shall pay certain specified
duties It is evident that whatever leg
Islative power is granted is hedged
around very closely.
In passing on matters of this kind su-
preme courts are exceedingly conserva-
tive and are governed to a great extent
oy usage. If they find that it has been
the custom to make such delegations
of legislative power" they will decline
10 pc into the possible merits Of the
point raised by the importers. Such
has been the custom. The records of
the State Department. will show procia-
NATION made by President Cleveland
early IN 1885 that evidence having been
submitted, which appeared satisfactory
TO him, that Spain had abolished certain
discriminating duties, the discriminate
ing customs duties imposed by the
United States on imports from Cuba and
Puerto Rico should be taken off. Thus
q Democratic President, acting under
the authority of Congress, took action
which lowered the duties which had
been collected on Cuban sugar, etc.
BY another proclamation made by Pres
ident Cleveland in 1886 it was declared
that he had become satisfied that the
Objectionable Spanish dif1erential duties
had not been completely suppressed
that be had been mistaken in his previ-
Gus belieEand that therefore the sus-
pension Of the retaliatorv discriminating
duties OF the United States was revoked
and those duties restored. And there
by the duties on Cuban and Puerto
Rican products were increased.
Such delegations Of power are on