The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1891-11-18
Some Striking Figures.

what becomes OF the Democratic asser-
ton that protection diminishes the for
eign trade?
During these eleven months tine por-.
, ton of merchandise admitted free OF
duty was 47.7S per cent. of tie whole,
same period of the year prior. Then
what becomes of the Democratic asser-
ton that the Mckinley bill "raised the
duties all along the ne ?"
Since sugar was put on the free list
and until August 81, 1891, a period of
five months, the total value of imports
of merchandise was $3.50, 725, 209, of
which 500, 533, 407 or 1919 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
30, 1890, under the old tariff the receipts
from customs were $237 sos, 1925. For
the full year ending September 80, 1891,
under the new tariff, the receipts from
customs were $l96, 302, 066. 96, decrease
of Sal 1886, 1919 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 S3.07.
The exact per capita reduction OF GUS
toms revenue is - cents. If, therefore,
the tariff is a 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 S49,-
OS9, 1913 greater than during the same
period of the year before. This is near
ly two and halt 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, 4S0 or 64.54 per
cent. of our total exports. During the
same month of this year they amounted
to SOL, 74S, 432, or 72.45 per cent. of the
whole. Our exports of manufactures,
on the other hand, during August, 1890,
were $l4, 24S, 799, or 20. ~ per cent. of all,
while during the same month of this
year they were Sl4, 75S. 35l, or only 2O.66
per cent. of the whole. Then, what be-
comes of the Democratic assertion that
protection aids manufacturing interests
only and Injuries those of agriculture
Since the rec. procty treaty with ora
I'll went into effect on April last, and
until August 81, our exports to that
country amounted TO So, 303, lS2, an in
crease over the same period of last year
of 81 ,l69, 592. And yet the Democratic
convention of New York tiippantly
pronounced reciprocity "A "humbug !"
The price of graduated sugar in Sep
TENDER, 1891, was A. cents pound, as
against 6s 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,-
600.
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 90; of iron
nails, $3.50 per 100 pounds, as against
S1.S5; OF steel nails, $l.S5, as against
$2.O5; of steel rails. $3O.77 per ton. as
against $3l 80; of binders Irvine IAN av-
erage of four grades), 8 l-l6 cents a
pound, as against l23 cents; of Bessemer
pig iron, So "a ton, as against $3.50 of
cut nails, $l.5o per 100 pounds, as
against $l.S5; of middling cotton, per
pound, S.54 cents, as against 12.l7.
Then what becomes of the Democratic
lie about the Mckinley bill having raised
prices, the pet lie on which the Democ-
racy won the congressional campaign a
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
lox. io hx, 10
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 after specified
time 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. 1t is evident that whatever leg
islative power is granted is hedged
around very closely.
In passing on matters of this kind SUI
preme courts are exceedingly conserva-
tive and are governed to great extent
by usage. If they find that it has been
the custom tc make such delegations
to 90 into the possible merits of the
point raised by the importers. Such
has been tho custom. The records OF
the State Department will show procla-
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
a 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 be had become satisfied that the
Objectionable Spanish differential duties
had not been completely suppressed
that he had been mistaken in his previ.
Gus belief-and that therefore the sus.
pension OF the retaliatory 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.