The Portland daily press., 1894-06-02
THAT DELUs1vE COMPARISON.

Hal
Friends of the Wilson bill as it passed
the House of Representatives are charg-
ing that the recent comparison between
the duties of that bill and of the same
Senate was prepared for the pur-
pose of whipping the House
into the support of the Senate
measure. The comparison in question
is the one published in the Argus the
other day for the purpose. as it said. of
convincing a Republican that really
there wasn't much difference between
the Senate and House bills as regards
the reduction of duties. We pointed out
some days ago the misleading character
of this comparison, but SO far as we
have observed it has been allowed to
stand in the Argus without modifcatit
or correction of any sort.
AS we said the other day, the COMPARE
son is technically correct. That is to
say, it is undoubtedly true that the
average rate of duty of the amended
bill is but slightly larger than that of
the bill as it passed the House. But a
great mass of imports are taxed in the
amended bill, which are free in the
House bill. The comparison is SO mis-
leading that the Democratic representa-
tives who voted for the Wilson bill are
protesting against it and condemning
the congressional campaign committee
| for sending it out. Congressman Tarsuey
of Missouri was requested to send one
of these alleged comparisons to the
| Democratic newspapers in his district,
but refused and wrote the committee
| protesting against it on the ground that
it was not predicated on a fair or just
| basis, and that the difference in the
| average of rates of the two bills was
misleading" Mr.. Tarsney has no diff
| Guilty in proving his assertion beyond all
| question by an examination of the
sugar schedule In the Wilson bill as
passed by the House all sugars are placed
on the freq list. Under the head of
sugar schedule" in that bill few
articles manufactured of sugar, such as
| confectionery, ETC., were enumerated
and rates of taxation thereon fixed, the
average of the rate thereon being %. 43
per cent. The Senate bill puts all sugars
back on the taxed list with an average
rate of 81. SO per cent, a very slight diff
erence in percentage. But the 2S per cent.
| taxation under the sugar schedule of
| the Wilson bill would amount to SIG, 600.
| The 8. SO per cent under the Senate bill
| would amount to between $45, 900, 600
and 100000
| Yet in the comparison prepared by the
Senate finance committee the average
rate on sugar is given as only about II
per cent greater in the Senate bill
than in the House bill. That is techni-
cally true. But it is terribly mislead-
ing. because the imports of sugar on
which taxes are to be levied has been
increased from about $50, 600 in the
House bill to 1925, 600, 900 in the Senate
bill. The true test to be applied to the
two bills is the amount of revenue OF
tax they will produce On last years
Importation the House bill will produce
| S125, 0OO 900, while the Senate bill Twill
yield $175, 900, 900. Thus while the aver
age rate OF 6no Oonabe Dlll is only lIbGle
over one per cent. higher than that Of
The House bill it will impose 0,000,0 0(
more of taxes by reason of being applied
to more articles. If the comparison had
not been sent out by good men like
German and Brice, who wouldn't Of
course be guilty of trying to deceive the
public, we should say it was piece Of
rank dishonesty.