New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-31
DEMOCRATIC HARMONY.
REPRESENTATIVE TARsNEY WRITES
CAUsTIC LETTER.
HE ATTACKS THE GoRMAN TARIFF BILL AND
THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL COM
M1rrEE-AccUsEs THE LATTER OF
INV TELEGRAPH TO TIE TRIBUyEI


IBY TELEGRAPH TO TIE TRIBuSE,1
Washington, May 3O-The latest expression OF dis
satisfaction on the part OF the Democrats OF the
IIouso With the amended German Tariff bill Is
found in letter published to-day by Representative
Tarsney of Missouri, a member OF the ways ana
Means Committee and the intimate personal triend
and travelling companion Of Chairman wilson. Mt.
Tarsney has received as other Representatives
have n circular from the Democratic Congressman
Campaign Committee. of which Senator Faulkner IS
chairman giving some estimates and comparisons
IN which the superiority of the German over the
Wilson bill Is inferentiay asserted and DEFENDED
Mr. Tarsney and his associates think that the actoh
Of the committee Is unheard Of and utterly unwarraht
ed II Is the function of the committee to supply inter-
AZURE on accomplished legislation. while this cir
cular II Is held IL intended to commit the party
TO the cause of the Senate, where there is a con-
hIct between the two houses not yet settled.
AS vet II Is not known which bill or what Dill
will become a law and this circular Is regarded as
a defence OF the Senate committee when mas not
yet been indorsed by either House or Senate MT
Tarsney's letter. addressed to Senator Faulkner Is
as follows
81 am IN receipt from you OF circular letter
~ tho 2s,h instant with Enclosure Of printed slip.
IN mart purporting to be tabulation showing COM
paratlve rates OF taxation fixed by the wilson
bill and the bill pending In the Senate ana
assuming to show a difference In the average rates
OF the two bills OF but III per cent You request
that send one OF said slips TO each OF the Demo-
cratic newspapers published in my district with
request that the same be published In such papers
Relieving that said comparative statement Is not
predicated upon a fair just basis for comparison
and that the difference in the average OF rates OF
the two bills shown therefrom Is misleading; mat
the deductions intended 20 be drawn from such
comparison cannot be defended. must respectfully
decline the request to give publication to the same
hon lat |
admit the misleading character Of such statement
.'If the average rates OF the two bills were oased
upon the rates fixed upon the same articles IN each
hill II the bills Identical in the articles SUD
ject 20 taxation the comparison would not De mis-
leading but as the average rate shown ~ the
senate hill il determined not only upon the rates
nxed uuon the articles enumerated in the wilson
hill hut also upon a large number or articles taken
from the free list OF that bill, the 'mporiauons OF
which amount In value to $l2OO1VO It certainty Is
misleading This comparative statement shows an
average rate upon the sugar schedule OF the wilson
bill Of 2S 3 per and upon the same scredue o. the
Senate bill 1853 per cent thus purporting to show
an increase OF but lll6 per cent in taxation upon
sugar by the Senate bill over the HOUSE p'ii'
Equally comprehensive and fair IL your statement
which shows that while under the Mckinney Id"
-en,ed- sugar is taxed one-haN cent per pound and
the average rate upon the schedule under tha
law IS l455 per cent. putting all sugars upon the
free lis, under the Wilson bill would raise the
average rate to % &c per cent. The wilson OH as
passed By the House placed all sugars upon the free
us, Under the head OF Sugar Schedule IN tla'
hill n few articles manufactured OF sugar such as
confectionery. etc were enumerated and rates OF
taxation thereon fixed. the average OF the rates
thereon being 2s q per cent. The Senate bill puts
all sugars back on the taxed list with an average
rate OF $3.50 per cent. very sight adherence !"
figures but a substantial difference IN taxation
The % ~ per cent taxation under the sugar schedule
~ the Wilson bill would amount $1,000 The 1888
Der cent under the Senate bill would amount to
between ,i5 ocoocO and 100000. 4 care, examlna-
ton Of the figures OF this statement TeaUns - ..o
other schhiules will show. though not 10 the sdine
d. cree as these that while figures Will NOT He'
they be compiled so as TO be very uecsPtae ad
ITO demonstrate that any comparison not piseu
upon the same Identical articles VIII necessary
be unfair and misleading, might suggest that II "a
law framed pracccaIly IN accoFudItos ,,ri,s
the English customs schedules taxing only spirits
,oharco and a few Ike articles OF luxury the
average rate under such law would be much nigher
than that Of the Wilson bill the senate OH OF
the Mckinley law. Yet the people. MISUNDERSTANDING
such Increase OF the average rate. would De re-
ueved OF A very great burden OF taxation. II our
only purpose was to reduce the general average
OF rates 81 taxation ana nOt tne OuIHe"s va
taxation we could have accomplished that by nav
ing no free list and putting the articles now on tne
free list upon the tax list with a nominal rate
This would greatly reduce me seheran s,Tai
This line. having 10 n great extent been followed
nv tho senate accounts for the satisfactory general
average which they show and present IN the STATE
ment which you ask me 10 have publsnei thlhA
nent 20 give out FOR publication would be that uhIsr
the Mckinley law the people are taxed ahhuai.y
sos $1,000. under the Senate bill Il IS proposed 70
tax them S75 90 ,0 and under the House bllI S-o-
90 OoO which shows a difference OF something more
'' JOHN c. TARSNEY.