The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-12-18
TIE TARIFF PRoRLEM.


tion most discussed by politicians at
present is whether the Republicans
should or shouId not endeavor to pass
the Dingley bin for the purpose of ac-
curing additional revenue. When such
able fnanoiers and tariff experts as SEN
ators Sherman and Aldrich hold direct
~ opposite views, there must undoubt-
eddy be able argument on both sides.
The secretary Of the treasury of the
present administration, with all the IA
cilities at his command, has not once
been able to approximate his revenues
and expenditures with any degree of &C
curaey. In December. 1898, he made
his first estimate Of a deficiency of $28,
600, 600 for that fiscal year, ending
June so, 1894. He was nearly $42, OOO,-
600 wrong. for the actual deficit was
$69. 803, 261. In the subsequent fiscal
year. ending June 30. 1895, he antici-
pated "a comfortable surplus" of Sc,
100, $50. This estimate was worse than
his first one by nearly IS, 600. 600, for
we had no comfortable surplus, % but
another deficit, amounting, in 1895, to
SAP, sos, 223. For the last fiscal year.
ending June 80, Mr.. Carlisle was at the
front again with surplus, in his mind,
of S2S. S14, $50, but the year closed with
q deficit of $28. 578, 671, making his
third effort to study the national ways
and means a failure to the extent of
$57, 1913, 591.
These deficiencies have been made up
by the sale of bonds, the money derived
from which has been used to pay the
legitimate debts of the government.
Added to these three shortages of near
" $3.50, 600, 600 is the deficit Of $751;
$50, SIT that has accrued during the
first four months to Oct 81 Of the cur
rent fiscal year, thus making total def
ciencies Of S182, 600, 600 during the
present administration. This does not
eat up all the proceeds of the various
bond issues, but leaves $50, 900, 900 that
should be on hand, available for SINH
lar purposes, although the government
persists in claiming that this money has
not been used to supply the deficiency
of revenue If not, where is it? And
why have we not the 1862, 900, 600 Of
gold, obtained by the sale OF bonds, still
in the treasury?
The Dingley bill of 1895 was never
intended as a Republican protective tar
if measure. It was the Republican idea
at that time of a revenue bill pure and
simple. When urging its passage, Dec.
ways and means committee said. ''The
first duty that confronts the house is to
provide revenue to meet the expendi-
lures. - If that were the duty of the
house a year ago, is it not more impera-
lively it's duty today, since the dehcien-
cy of revenue has been increasing month
by month since then? But it may be
urged that the condition Of the treas
ury, with something left on hand from
the last loan, is such that additional
revenue is not now needed But how
long can this be guaranteed?
Those who are opposed to attempting
any revenue legislation during the COM
ing short session of congress argue that
/ the Dinglay bill can at best be but a
! temporary makeshift; hence it Will be
! better to make haste slowly and wait
till the entire administration of the
country has passed into the hands of
the Republican party before making any
effort to tamper with its finances.
Should the Dingley bill fail in its pur-
/ ported effect-to provide the revenue
that was claimed for 1.-THE Republic
ans will have to bear the brunt of the
blame for any prolOngation of q deficit.
In some respects the Dingley bill
would certainly increase the revenue,
notably so from the duties on sugar.
In many lines Of manufactured goods
it would tend to diminish the imports,
thus reducing the revenue, and it is a
/ question whether the additional 3 per
cent of customs duties collectable under
the Dingley bill would more than COM
pensate for the loss of revenue through
the smaller imports Of such goods as it
would exclude from our markets to the
benefit Of our home industries. Had the
DingIey bill been in force during the
current year it would have fallen short
Of the estimate (@4O 600. O0O) of in
( creased revenue that was claimed for it
under our imports as they actually have
been for the last fiscal year. From i'm
ports of all goods, except wool and wool
ems, we should have secured almost
$40. 600, 600 of revenue, So, coo, 900
more than Mr.. Dingley estimated. But
nobody will for a moment suppose that
we would have imported any such guam
titles of foreign goods with q per
cent higher tariff.
From raw wool alone Mr Dinglev
anticipated a revenue Of $I2, 900, 00O
but on the basis of our imports of wool
under actual free trade the revenue de-
rivable from duties on wool would have
been only 81, 500. 900, and the duty, 3
cents pound on carpet woods and g. 6
cents on clothing woods, would certain
" have kept the quantity Of wool i'm
ported below the supply received from
abroad under absolute free trade; hence
that estimate of revenue must be re-
duced. Again, from wooden goods Mr.
Dingley anticipated $12, 600, 600 of rev
enue; but, according to our actual i'm
ports Of wooden goods, the additional
duties would have reached only IS, 49,
3S3 without allowing for any curtaiI-