New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-10
MN TOR BTNCONBE.

4 ELL FOR BTNCONBE.
Neither Nlr. Springer, who is supposed to have
framed tho VOL and Woollens bill, nor any one
Of his associates or supporters, appears to be
able % meet with fairness the questions which
that bill raises AT the very threshold OF discus
sion. These questions are two: Who is to be
benefited by the proposed changes OF duties, and
How shall the revenue be raised which 1t Is pro-
ro>sod 70 c,lt Of by those changes? Not the least
trace of an intelligent answer to either question
can be found in the report OF the committee
recommending the bill, or in the arguments Of
its supporters thus far
In anv other sef-governing country those who
nronosc 2 measure Of this sort are obliged to
moet sucb oucstions rs these at the outset, or to
SEQ their bill thrown into the waStc-baSket.
Imaoino for instance. that a measure reducing
the revenue by many millions had been offered
in the British Parliament. 1t would not be sup
ported by anybody, even by the political aSSo-
Gates of those who proposed it, unless accom-
poniod BY clear statement of the benefits TO
be derived. and of the mode of raising the rove
nue. to be cut off. If such statement were re-
fused tho party in power would instantly de-
cline to consider the measure, and Ministers
would be forced to offer explanations both IN
,clligcnt and fair or to get out Of office without
C!e.ay Is there any reason why a similar
responsibility should not attend the proposal OF
a bill 10 greatly reduce the revenue in this coun-
try?
There is no room for dispute as to the fact that
the bill would reduce the revenue 1t is plain
enough that it would cut off all the revenue at
nrcsent derived from the duties on imported
wool. It is also plain enough that unless The
importations Of woOllen goods should enormously
increase, 4 reduction in the duties from more
than 80 per cent to less than 40 per cent would
cut down the receipts from imports OF such goods
very Largely. But it il declared by the sup
portcrs Of the bill that it will not expose Amer-
can manufactures to more severe competition,
and il is a necessary consequence, II this be tfue
tha, the bill would not increase importations OF
wcOllcn goods. If il would not, more than half
the revenue derived from imports of such goods
would be cut off, besides all the revenue from
duties on wool. The duties on wool last year
were S6.552.2G7, and the duties on woollcn
manufacturers were $3i, s37,453, and including
only half Of the latter receipts the reduction
would be about S2i,OOO,0OO. No man can
study official reports Of the Treasury without
learning that this revenue cannot be spared,
especially if Congress is to pass River and
IIarbor bill appropnating S2i,00O,OOO or more.
From what quarter, then is the loss Of revenue
o. he made good if the Wool and WoollenS bill
should be passed? There j. not a word of
reply. nor j. there even an attempt TO explain,
for tho obvious though very discrcditablG rea-
son. that il is never intended the bill should
become a law.
The question regarding the purpose Of the
bill is not the leS' pertinent. rs supporters as
ser that wool is cheaper now than 1t was be-
fore the duties were increased. If so, no benefit
would be conferred upon woollcn manufacturers
by taking of the duty. II needs no assertion
by them. for it IL known to every buyer of wool
len goods. that is, TO the whole people that the
cost Of wo)llon goods *. on The whole, less than
it was two ycars ago If this is so, what benefit
can be conferred upon purchasers of woollcn
goods by the change of duty? Again, there is
not even a respectable attempt 10 answer the
question Tho people are expected to believe
that the manufacturer will somehow be benefited
by the repeal Of duties which have lowered the
cost of wool. and that consumers will somehow
be benefited by a reduction Of duties which have
lowered the cost Of woollen goods. Again, this
IS for the obvious but dScrcditable reason that
il is never intended the bill should become 4 law
The men who offer this measure would never
dare to do -, while making no other provision
for revenue and no corresponding change of
lut04 affecting other interests and sections, il |
K were not understood to be a mcrr trick of par
.an tactics, The bill is intended to please
certain class of voters, but is never expected to
De ,cSted by actual results YET it must in fair |
lcSs be admitted, in the light Of the response |
)ility of a majority in the House representing the
)copo, that a measure cannot be honorably pro- |
posed for which members would not venture to
vote if i, could Al once be passed. II i, in the
rs, degree diSgracehll TO propose a measure for
which no decent defence can possibly be offered.
Rightly considered il is one of the most con
,incing proofs that the Democratic party is en-
ir Y incapable Of government and unworthy Of
that il ventures to offer for purely
PARTISAN ends measure which it does not scr
.usly attempt 70 defend because knowing that
cannot DO defended.