The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1894-10-19
ANOTHER BIG sLUNDER.
The Csmocrutic sugar Trust Tariff Cutting
on Revenue Receipts.


The Demoerntic sugar Trust Tariff Cutting
on Revenue Receipts.
II fails la produce revenue enough to
meet the expenses of the government.
It's first month the worst September in
the past ten years. Receipts under it
little more than half those under the
Mckinley law Will a new bond issue
be necessary?
The first month of the workings of
the sugar trust tariff law are bitter
disappointment to the democrats.
They have been complaining that the
Mckinley law did not furnish money
enough To- meet the legitimate ex-
pcnscs of the government, but to their
establishment they find their own
tariff law falling short of the Mckin-
ley law, or any other tariff we have
had for years. in the matter of re-
ceipts. Not only so, but they find the
receipts under their new law during
its first month nearly eight million
dollars less than the expenditures dur
ing that same month. This would
seem to- indicate that the new law
will produce about one hundred mil
lion dollars less per annum than the
expenditures 1t was expected that
the customs receipts under the new
law would be enormous during thetirst
month. Hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of goods were piled up in the
bonded warehouses of the country
waiting to come in under the reduced
rate offered by the new law. So it
was naturally to be expected that the
receipts of the first month under the
new law would be very large, and
would convince the people at once
that ali the claims for a reduced tariff
were fully justified.
Now let us see what it really did do.
The law went into effect August %,
so that the first month of its workings
may fairly be put down as the cal
endar month of September. An Off
cial document issued by the treasury
department. under the auspices of the
democratic secretary of the treasury,
entitled The comparative statement
of the receipts and expenditures of the
United States" shows the following
figures for the month of September:
Receipts. So, 621 ,22S.SS; expenditures,
ESQ. 323, 01S.6l.
Thus it will be perceived that the
receipts were 1,I01, 1927 less than
the expenditures during the month of
September. the first month under the
new tariff law. And this. too, in the
very month in which the receipts were
expected to run very large because of
tie enormous importation of foreign
goods piled up in the warehouses wait
ing to come in under the new law. If
the new law in this first month, in
which it was expected to be exception
ally productive of revenue, actually
produces deficit of S7,7O1, 100, it does
not take much of an arithmetical ex-
pert to figure out the prospective de-
iciency in twelve months at nearly a
hundred million dollars.
Now to compare the workings of this
sugar trust tariff with the much
naligned Mckinley law. The first
months receipts from customs alone
1nder the new law were SIS, 564, 900
The customs receipts under the first
month of the Mckinley law were S24,
}34.1f showing the customs receipts
lnder the first month of the Mckinley
law in the first month of its operation
20 have been more than fifty per cent.
greater than the customs receipts I'M
Ter the sugar trust tariff law. But
that is not all The total receipts of
The first month under the sugar trust
.ariff were S22, 621, Dps, while the total
receipts of the first month under the
Mckinley tariff were $50, 222, ia, or IS
Der cent. greater. The average
monthly receipts of the ~ months that
he Mckinley tariff was in effect, were
s29.S91. O16, or nearly 80 per cent.
greater than that of the first month of
me sugar trust tariff law.
But the suggestion is made that it is
lot fair to compare the September re-
,eipts of this year with all the year
-ound receipts of other years, because
September is light month in receipts.
So. let US compare the receipts of Sep
:ember under the sugar trust tariff
with the September receipts under the
Mckinley tariff. While we are about it
suppose we take in the preceding tariff,
Ind cover say the Septembers from
1884 to 1894. This will give us glimpse
If the Arthur administration, all of
Mr.. Cleveland's first four years, all of
Harrison's term, and a part of Cleve-
and's second term, and will also give
seven Septembers under the tariff of
1888. three Septembers under the Nc
hinley law, and the first September
ander the sugar trust tariff. 1t may
De worth while, too. to give the ex-
oenditures in each month. 1t will be
observed that the total receipts under
he sugar trust tariff in September.
1894. are less than IN any September an ten
years. and that the expenditures are
ireater than in any September in ten gears.
EJpeRdi-
Receipts ture.
September 1854 229 lI9 Sl7 l13 9i2