Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1894-08-14
s1no Mtlls BtlI aud ne Senate Bill.

From De Philadelphia Record
No better answer could be given to tho fla
grant Republican Misrepresentation of tho
Senate Tariff bill than that which IS afforded
by comparison OF its provisions with tho
Mills bill of 1893. The Mills bill dealt with
the Tariff of 1882, while the Senate bill deals
with much more difficult problem. But a
careful and impartial comparison of the two
measures will show that the much beIied Sem
ate bill proposes moro radical reduction OF
protective duties than was proposed by the
Mills bill. That Is to say, the bill now lying
in COMMITTEES of Conference, II 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 bin was accepted by
the friends of Tariff Reform as a 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 tho tariff mongers denounce
the Senate bill rs another Free Trade iniquity 1.
Throughout nearly every schedule OF I'm.
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 tho rates proposed in
the Mills bill. In its conservatism the Mills
bill LEFT the duties on silks untouched; and
wool on the free list the Mills bill proposed to
reduce the duties ON woolens from So per cent.
In the Tariff Of 1882 TO an average oh 10 per
cent. The Senate bill proposes to reduce the
average rate of duty on woolens from 90 per
cent. In the Mckinley tariff 10 20 per cent.-a
much greater proportiOpate reduction than
was proposed in the Mills bill. This Is in ac-
ic pledge TO make no violent or vindictive
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 1t 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
a revenue measure this was regarded as q Tath-
i er steep reduction of duty but, at that time
at least, the friends of Tariff Reform were
unanimonsly in favor Of revenue duty on
sugar. Had the Mills bill been passed the rev.
enue from sugar under IT'S provisions would
have amounted to upward of $750000O0 q
year In substantially reducing the Mills rate
the Senate bill would bring S400O0,000 q year
to the Treasury from sugar. In what respect
d IL the Senate bill q departure from the princi
pie ond policy of It's Democratic predecessor
of 1888 save in proposing a greater reduction
( Of the sugar duty II the Senate bill proposes
j to make discrimination in favor of refnd su
. gar as an article ofmnnufactnre. OF the discrimi-
nation proposed in the Mills bill was much
greater. Who viii dare affirm that the Senate
bill so far as relates to tho sugar duties Is not
from every point of view a 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 70 free raw
materials it would be much better nneasllre
than the Free Trade Tariff Of 1915. While
the Senate bill proposes to cut the duties ON
: coal and iron ore in twain, the Mills Dill pro-
/, r,osed to leave them untouched. This was moi
because Chairman Mills and his Democratic
! associates OF the Ways ard Means Com-
!. . Emittes in isss did not desire to put coal and
3 iron ore on the free list. Tley were confront
"a however by the same difieuitY which
4 confronts the Democrats Of the Senate. Bu
no friend OF Tariff Reform asseFts that the fra
n mefs Of the Mills bill were Aaithless and cor
) rupt because they could not achieve inpossi
, bfiiiies. No one urged. as now. that the bill
Be Passed because Il did not put coal and iron
ore ON the free list nor beeau9e Il made a larg
discrimination in the duty on refined sugar.
n With all Its shortcomings and its concession
to the lingering spirit Of Protection, It Is seel
= thatthe Senate bill Is . great stride itt TaFi
: Reform since the Nils bill embodied II
!; Democratic policy on this quest on.