The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-05-26
FROM WASHINGTON.
SOME FUNNY ~TATEsMANsHIP

$1,000 SOAAAS OCA4A { NNOAN IL AhSC
TOR 1890 and 1S91-What is Causing
the Reduction-A Newspaper Core
spOndent Makes a Pretty Promise
Alliance Campaign and Mass Meet
ing to be Held in NJ iSsiSSippi-COali
ton to be Considered in Wisconsin
Growth and Progress of the Alliance
Some Mighty Howling and Wailing
The receipts of the government from
the Mckinley tariff for the month of
April, 1891, we're $12, 591, 900. The re
celpts for the month of April, 1890, I'm
der the old tariff law, were $40, 9O7, 466
"a falling off of over eve million
dollars. These are the official figures,
and they suggest some interesting and
significant facts.
When the famous and infamous Nc
Kinley tariff bill was under discussion
1t was claimed by the champion of the
measure that would effect an annual
reduction Of $40, 600, 900 in the general
tariff receipts. The caption of the bill
was An Act to reduce the Revenue"
etc.
OO-hH CI1OC d
The more one reviews and cOntem-
plates the work of the last Congress,
the o. marvellously ridiculous and
outrageous it appears, and the reviewer
gets more and more Disguised and
madden and madden. What a scandal
lOus travesty on craftsmanship that
body was! Now let's prove it.
The largest amount the government
ever received from the tariff was in
1890, when it amounted to 1929, 600, 600.
The receipts from all source were
$4O3, O00, 600. Now keep in mind the
fact that Mckinley, ETC., asserted that
the new tariff law would reduce the
tariff receipts $40, 600, 900. That would
make the tariff receipts for 1891 amount
to $3.50, 600, 900, and talking all other
receipts to be the same as in 1890, the
total receipts for 1891 would be 1868,
600, 900.
This same Mckinley & Go. voted APP
preparations and expenditures for the
year 1891, to the amount of about
$500, OOO, 900. NOwif they really thought
that this tariff would really reduce the
revenue, where on earth did they ex-
pect the money to come from to pay
all that $500, 900, 900? That's states
manship with a vengeance.
DID THEY REALLY MEAN IT?
Could they have really meant what
they said about this matter? To say
they didn't would be equivalent to say
ing they differed from Ananias only in
that Ananias is dead To admit they
did mean it shows them to be wofully
wanting in the attributes of statesman
ship; for what statesman worthy of
the name would entertain the notion
Of conducting the affairs of a govern
ment at an expense of $500, OOO, 900,
when it's receipts were only 1868, 600,
900? This begins to get serious. 1t
looks like a plan to make more debt
for the government so that more bonds
may be issued and more interest paid,
and more bonds bought in at 25 per
cent. premium, and the like. It's time
to be on the watch.
THE TARIFF REVENUE REALLY REDUCED.
There is a lurking suspicion that
these tariff makers hoped that the
tariff receipts would be really increased
by the bill; but they sought to make
the measure popular by saying that if
the same amount of goods should be
imported under the new law as was
imported under the old, the total re
duction in revenue would be $40, OOO,
900. This was a covert way of trying
to leave the impression that there
would be a general reduction on every
thing, and that everything would be
cheaper. They knew the great ma.
jOrity of people never studied the tariff
and generally accepted as facts what
ever political "whippers in" chose to
tell them. Well, they've been caught
in a partial truth. The tariff revenue
is really being reduced, and if the next
eleven months shall make the same
showing as made by April, the total
reduction for the year will be $84, 600,
coo instead of $40, 600, 900. This will
leave only 1919, 900, 900 with which to
pay the annual expenditure of $500,
600, 900.
WHAT CAUSES THE REDUCTION.
Another question which comes up In
an interesting way, is: What is caus-
ing the reduction? Is it because of the
articles added to the free list, OF be-
cause the new duty on other articles is
so high that it prohibits their importa-
ton? The March summary issued by
the Bureau of Statistics shows little
difference on the whole, in the amount
e Hnoo onA:AlAn :nannn4nd In Mnrch 6 O