The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-05-28
THE CHEAP CLOTHING BILL.


Representative Springer's cheap cloth
lug bill is not meeting the endorsement
of protectionists. They charge that the
bill is too protective, and they arraign it
after this fashion,: "The bill leaves a
tariff on wooden goods averaging 40 per
cent. ad valorem, while it gives the man
ufacturer his wool free. This forces the
American wool grower to compete with
low-priced wool from abroad; reduces
the price to the manufacturer and at thu
same time gives him protection to the
amount of 40 per cent. What better
could a manufacturer desire and where
does the benefit to the people come in?"
The party which seriously formulates
this argument and as seriously maintains
it is not sincere in its demands for high
protection. 1t is true the bill taxes
clothing higher than democrats desire,
but the cut was forced down to 40 per
cent. as the very lowest it could 60 con-
sistent with the present demands for
reyenue-a demand which republican
extravaganza created. But it must be
understood that while the 40 per cent.
ad valorem revenue tax was retained the
specific prohibitory taxes were abolished
altogether. To illustrate: Under the
Mckinley bill blankets, wool hate and
ilannels for underwear valued at less
than IN .npfc a ppnrI ,,opn l,f;nl ~ %
per cent. adj valorem and in addition
thereto a specific duty averaging 81 per
cent. or S1.04 per cent. in all. The
Springer bill abolishes the specific duty
and reduces the adj valorem duty from
30 per cent. to %, so that the total duty
provided for by the bill upon the articles
named is only % per cent. as against
1914 under the Mckinley bill.
Take worsteds as another case in point.
Under tho Mckinley bill they are double
taxed, the duties amounting to 1866
per cent. or a little over Sl.75 on every
dollars worth. Tho cheap clothing bill
reduces this prohibitive tax from l75 per
cent. to 40 per cent. or a reduction of
S1.:}5 on the dollars worth. AS the
Mckinley tariff now stands it is over 400
per cent greater than the tax proposed
by the Springer, or cheap clothing bill.
The Mckinley bill. taxes women's and
children's dress goods of the quality
worn by the laboring people 50 per cent.
The cheap clothing bill reduces the tax
to 30, a reduction of 80 cents on each
dollars worth bought. On tapestry brus-
sells carpet the Mckinley tax is 81 cents
on the dollar and on ingram G5 cents.
The cheap clothing bill reduces the tax
to 30 cents.
The average reduction proposed by
the cheap clothing bill is nearly 50 per
cent of the present Mckinley taxes on
the same articles. If our protection
friends can see too much protection in
this the TRIBUNE will ask them to be
patient for a season. They have been
thirty years in maturing the browning
tariff iniquity; they cannot expect dem
ocrats to reform it all in "A few weeks.
But the reformation will be worked out.
Before the democrats get through this
business of adjusting the tariff to the
interests of the people they will arrange
the matter so that foreign wealth will
not be taxed out of the country. We
want all that can be brought into it and
no democrat believes in taxing any form
of wealth to a point that will keep it out
of the country. They will see that the
tariff will be adjusted to meet the re-
guiremcnts of the country if the power
be given them. In the meansimc the
opponents of the cheap clothing bill are
welcome to all the political capital they
eau make out of the charge that the
Springer bill is too protective.