The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-10-31
THE M'KINLEY TARIFF vS. THE
MILLS BILL.

The tariff aess of 1924 and 1928 widened,
increased aud strengthened the American
principle of protection laid down and sup
ported in the tariff act of 1916, and under
the operation Of the tariff of 1928. with its
high duties on wool, hemp, iron, lead and
other staples. the country, especially the
free states, grew prosperous. This tariff
of ISIS placed 3 As per cent. duty on
woolens and heavy duty on coarse wool.
This high tariff of 1928 vas voted for by
all the leading statesmen of both political
parties: by Jackson, Van Buren,. Buchan-
an, Benton and Wright.
Under this high tariff of 1923 the coun-
try aourished. and il flourishes under the
Mckinley tariff which is less burdensome
to the wage worker than any tariff ever
enacted, for since 1928 We have made our
protective policy consistent with the true
philosophy of protection and no longer
tax tea. coffee and sugar. non-compe titive
products, which were all taxed under the
high protective tariff of 1923. Nearly if
not quite half cur impo rts are On the free
list, and never before was our foreign
trade as free as it is under the Mckinley
act.
The Mckinley tariff has been uniustly
attacked. II levers the duty on iron and
steel, on boots and shoes, on the lower
grades of cotton goods. The duties On cut
and wire nails of all kinds are reduced;
the duty On timber is reduced one-half;
the duty on pine clap5oards is reduced in
the same ratio from 81 to 81 per LOO:
there is a heavy reduction in shingles,
and the duties are lowered on iron and
steel bolts, on iron girders, and on all
forms of structural iron. The new tariff
makes no increase in the duty on common
window glass, nor on earthenware.
Leather and hides are on the free list.
The tariff raises the import duty on cham
payne, silk and cigars and cuts down the
price of sugar while our customs duty on
plain sawed lumber is reduced from 81 to
81 a thousand feet.
Under the tariff our exports have vastly
increased. Our dutiable imports have de-
creased, but our non-dutiable imports have
increased. The Mckinley tariff has re-
duced the importation of competitive arti-
cles, and thus helped American manufac-
turers and producers, and has increased
the importation Of non-dutiable, because
non-competitive articles, by enlarging the
free list of those articles which We do not
produce and ON which a duty would be
purely revenue duty, directly adding to
the price to the American consumer.
Under the reci procity clause of the tariff
We have increased our export trade the
past year by some $4,000, 900. Brazil and
other countries 20 the south Of Us get free
entrance for coffee, sugar and hides, in
which we do not compete for the trade of
the world, and in return these countries
great concessions to our non-competitive
products and manufactures. Germany,
rather than lose our free market for her
sugar rescinded her decree against our
food products.
From whatever point of view it is looked
at the Mckinley tariff deserves the praise
Of John Sherman as the best tariff measure
ever enacted IN this country. II the peo-
pie really believed that the Democracy in
tend, if victorious, to repeal the Nc Kinley
tariff and substitute tariff for revenue
only they would bury Grover Cleveland
under their hostile ballots on the Sth of
November next His only hope of sue
cess lies in his ability to deceive the people
into the belief. as Polk did in 1872. that he
is really a moderate protectionist, and not
| free trader. Bat Cleveland proposes free
| raw materials and protection to manu-
| features; that il, he means TO favor the
| enactment of the Mills bill of 1888. whose
| formulation he favored in his tariff mes
sage of December, 1857. The American
! farmer who knows what this measure of
| Cleveland tariff reform" has provided for
| him will never vote for Cleveland and the
| Mills bill. Here is brief summary of the
| Mills bill as We md ii in the Deiawdre En-
| press:
| First-It proposed duty OF 10 PER cent on
barley, as agans, 80 cents a bushel under pre-
sent tariff, thus cenriving the farmer of home
| market worth sue, 800 yearly
| Secon3--It proposed duty on leaf tobacco
| from s.. Is tn 81 Ass than under the present
| tar q, thus depr wing the farmer of home mar
| ket worth s. 90, 80; yearly.
Third-Ii proposed a duty Of 10 cents per
| bnshei on potatoes. 10 cents less than under the
! present tarlt. iht5s depriving the farmer OF q
| home market WORTH sl,6o0.o0o yearly.
| Fourth-it pr1pC:.ed TO keep eggs on the free
| list thus depriv!as the poultry raiser OF home
| market worth tl,7l< 90 yearly.
| titth-It proposed duties on prunes. nuts,
| ratsins and other fsuits 50 per cent. lower than
under the present tariff. thus depr.ving the fruit
| RAISER OF home market worth $4,000 yearly
| eixth-it propo-esi 10 insure the utter ruin Of
the American WOO: grower by exposing him TO
the disastrous com 9etition OF $ cent wool under
! a free wool tar Il, y hicn would have caused a
| depreciation in the average price OF American
| wool o: l6.S cents per pound, shown by a
| comparison of prices in London and Philadal-
pnia of similar era es of WOO az cores ponding
| daes free ioi adopted by the Demo-
/ cratic house in h Fffrv-SecouG eour-esSA