St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1896-06-06
JUGGLING WITH STATISTICS.
Republican Organs Doctoring Facts I
Sa1it TIL air (rxrs sEsr,rr,<,ssa

SCIGLtNG WIEH SIAitSIICS.
Republican Organs Doctoring Facts Go
Suit Their Own Purposes.
We noted recently several instances
of the confusing effect of Mckinley
worship on the mathematical faculties.
In the case of the New York Tribune
the same effect appears, coupled with
an atrophy of that moral sense which
abhors untruth or the semblance OF it.
Rebuking Gen. Ciarkson for having
said that Mckinley is the champion of
an extreme, ultra high protective tariff,
| it says that lit Is an astonishing blun-
der for a republican to speak of thataet
(1890) as one of extreme protection y
It then proceeds to show, in its own
peculiar way, that all former republi-
can tariffs were higher. It says that
the Mckinley act produced duties
from 1929 that averaged 21.66 per
cent, while the act of 1858. during its
first three years, averaged 3o.5s per
cent, and the average under the law in
force from 1869 to 1871 was 41.94 per
cent.
Waving the slight inaccuracies in
these percentages, which appear on ex-
animation of the treasury reports-for
no prudent person will accept the fig
ures given by these arithmetical bung-
lers and tricksters without investiga-
tion-thc trick that the Tribune is
capable of descending to to score a
point lies in its taking the average of
the percentages OF duty computed on
all the imports, whether they are duti-
able or on the free list. This is a very
transparent fraud, this computation of
duties on imports that pay no duty, in
order to cast discredit on former repub-
Lean tariffs and make better showing
for what it termed, when first enacted,
"the best and bravest tariff ever enact
the showing made by calculating the
rate on the goods on which taxes were
laid shows that Clarkson was right, and
the Tribune is not only wrong, but is
easily convicted of stupid evasion.
The real question is what was the
average rate or taxes paid on the duti-
able goods imported. Taking the same
tables for the, same, period we find that
the average for the years 1869-71 was
46.0s per cent, for 1876 44.34 per cent.
and for 1924 tAdcKinley's it was As. IL
per cent What it would have been had
it lasted longer it's rate of progression
gives some indication. The average
was 4s.71 per cent. in 1892, 49.5s per
cent. in 1898, and 50.06 in it's last
year. This change came from the grad
ual change of policy as the republican
party grew more and more radical.
The first tariffs were laid for revenue
as well as protective purpose. They
covered articles not produced here as
well as those that were. Hence in 1867
II the imports paying no taxes were
only about per cent. of all. BY the
time the era of McKinleyism had ar
rived the party had reached the policy
OF putting on the free list everything
not produced here, and taxing highly
everything like that which was. This
made the free imports. chiefly sugar,
tea and coffee, in the Mckinley period,
66 per cent. of all.
Here we have the solution of that
steady decrease that cut the customs
revenues from $226, 6,54o,037 in 1890, be-
fore McKinley's act went into effect, to
S129, ,556. .892 IN it's last year. Putting
revenue producers, such as raw sugar,
on the free list depleted the revenue,
while the inordinate taxation of CONF
peting goods decreased their consump-
ton and consequent importation, and
thus reduced revenue. 1t is this policy
that it is proposed to restore if ma
jority of the voters are silly enough to
consent. But what shall be thought of
a paper and candidate of that paper,
when such methods are used to bolster
up his candidacy and his cause esSt.
Paul Globe.