Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1894-08-15
The Mius Bm aud the Senate Biu.

From the PHILADELPHIA Record.
No better answer could be given to the ha-
grant Republican misrepresentation of the
Senate Tariff bill than that which is afforded
by comparison of its provisions with the
Mills bill of 1888 The Mills bill dealt with
the Tariff of 1882, while the Senate bill deals
with much more difficult problem. But
careful and impartial comparison of the two
measures will show that the much belied SEN
ate bill proposes more radical reduction of
protective duties than was proposed by the
Mills bill. That is to say, the bill now lying
in Committee ofConference, if adopted, would
make the rates of duty in the aggregate and in
detail lower than the rates proposed in the
Mills bill. Yet the Mills bill was accepted by
the friends of Tariff Reform as fair express
sion of their views, and was bitterly assailed
by the Protectionists as an infamous scheme
of British Free Trade. With somewhat less
partisan injustice the tariff mongers denounce
the Senate bill as another Free Trade iniquity.
Throughout nearly every schedule of inn
ports, including cotton goods, silks, iron and
steel, earthenware, glassware, sugar and chem
icals. the rates of duty are substantially lower
in the Senate bill than the rates proposed in
the Mills bill. In its conservatism the Mills
bill left the duties on silks untouched; and
the Senate bill reduces them. In putting
wool on the free list the Mills bill proposed to
reduce the duties on woolens from 6S per cent.
in the Tariff of 1882 to an average of 40 per
cent. The Senate bill proposes to reduce the
average rate of duty on woolens from 30 per
cent. in the Mckinley tariff to As per cent.-a
much greater proportionate reduction than
was proposed in the Mills bill This is in ac-
cordance, too, with the oft-repeated Democrat
ic pledge to make no violent or yindictive
slash at the tariff If there be those who re-
gard this as a mere campaign pledge, made
only to be broken, there are others of us who
hold that it should be faithfully and honorably
observed.
In the sugar schedule the Mills bill proposed
to reduce the duty on raw sugar from 100 per
cent. in the Tariff of 1882 to rs per cent, and
on refined sugar from 100 to 81 per cent. For
revenue measure this was regarded as a rath-
er steep reduction of duty but at that time
at least. the friends of Tariff Reform were
unanimously in favor of revenue duty on
sugar. Had the Mills bill been passed the rev.
enue from sugar under its provisions would
have amounted to upward of S75,OOO,OOO a
year. In substantially reducing the Mills rate
the Senate bill would bring $iO,0O0,0OO year
to the Treasury from sugar. In what respect
is the Senate bill a departure from the princi-
pie ond policy of its Democratic predecessor
of 1888 save in proposing greater reduction
of the sugar duty? If the Senate bill proposes
to make a discrimination in favor of refind su-
gar as an article of manufacture the discrimi-
nation proposed in the Mills bill was much
greater Who will dare affirm that the Senate
bill so far as relates to the sugar duties is not
from every point of view much better meas
ure of Tariff Reform than was the Mills bill
Under the Senate bill the free list would be
larger than in any tariff since the foundation
of the Government. In respect to free raw
materials it would be a much better measure
than the Free Trade Tariff of 1916. While
the Senate bill proposes to cut the duties on
coal and iron ore in twain, the Mills bill pro-
posed to leave them untouched. This was not
because Chairman mills and his Democratic
associates of the Ways and Means Com
mittee in 1883 did not desire to put coal and
iron ore on the free list. They were confront
ed, however by the same difficulty which
confronts the Democrats of the Senate. But
no friend of Tariff Reform asserts that the fra
mers of the Mills bill were faithless and cor
rupt because they could not achieve impossi-
biliies. No one urged, as now, that the bill
be passed because it did not put coal and iron
ore on the free list, nor because it made large
discrimination in the duty on refined sugar
With all its shortcomings and its concessions
to the lingering spirit of Protection, it IS seen
that the Senate bill is great stride in Tariff
Reform since the Mills bill embodied the
Democratic policy on this question.