The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1896-02-07
THE DiNoLEv BILL
Measure That q. Iuu of Tafse Pr~-

/. ~~"st sA4f OF IAAoe -
frn-e>-
The more the measure is cNamincs
tn errater ncconcs The doubt =, hetl, a
'he D.nEley tari1 bill i a revenue bil
or mol There has never BEEN ar \ dou 81
that the assertion that il was intended
10 get ril ~ thr d. ,icir in The treasur,
was distinctly false prrtrnse- There
Is 10 deficir In Tie treasury. hut on the
contrary q surplus Of more than $780,.
ucu.pOo- llo~ i got there j. imrra,eri-
Il 70 thu inquiry. though 1t has frs.-
qurniiy bern cxp.gincd in these col
uinns- II i sufficient that il il there.
AMI that IL l. likely "a Increase rather
than diminish.
Lrs here are Other reasons WHY The
? Dinsley bill is not properly a revenue
bill IL was atowrdly framed 10 in
crr-.~e the protec ION on competitive
articles. besides. il incrcaS ss every ex-
isting tax except that on he best rev
el-e commodity imported. namely.
sugar. Senator Jones. OF Ne,..t.a. cb-
Iccfcd 10 IL because there was no in
crr-Sc in TIE duty on sugar. In doing
this. he was not looking rs rs.vrrs rie. hut
was scllcitous 10 give further y1rotcc-
ton 10 beet sugar mills. Never heless.
sugar gives q large amour. OF revenue
TO small Per cent. 81 protection. ard
this a. one r,aspn why the republicans
wi-h 10 let IL alone The chief reason.
however, j. because they Iare not Of
fend the SUE. Pr trust. but are also afr. ia
; 20 grant i any additional fayors- Ie-
Ing between the people on one sisie and
the trust on the other. they prefer To
le. su.ar alone.
IL was pretended VIXEN The Dinrcv
bin was first introduced that il would
afford sio.001.0o0 additional rerenae.
The more lie bill Is studied the less
probable this proposition appears. Il
Is based in part on the theory that the
imports 81 wool VII be rs great " hen il
is taxed as when l. is free. The sane
mistake is made a. 10 wcolens. which /
are not novv free. but upon which 81 4
per cent. OF the Mckinley rates are 10 4
he imposed in addition 10 the "a -es Of
the Wilson bill. Both these conten-
tons ara absurd On all other taxed
commodities the D;ngley bill proposes
- INCREASE The tax - per cent. and il
= an open question whether this will |
not cheek inlporta-ions 10 such an ex-
.ent as 20 reduce rather than raise the
revenue. Tie conclusion of several c,-
Terrs who have ra.ie estimates Is 10
the effect that The Increase in revenue
'flii uol amount 70 half or perhaps lot
: quarter. az s+10F2 100.
There are other articles which could
Easily u made u yield consiicrabl.
revenue without eausing the consumer
e ray any tribute - horne producers
here IS tea for example. many OF the
icalerS IN which desire to see il taxed
Y Ok IL cents a pound Prior TO $50
{ was taxed . cents 2 pound. In .hat
ear the tax was reduced 10 Is cents.
n 1872 il was put on tie free .ist- and
as remained there eser since. In 1906
We imported upward Of 9-.OO0. 90 ,
sounds. which. az ~ cents 4 pourl.
Fould have yielded 1900 100 Il. rs.ven- :
K: at Is cents. sis-5J0.Cpo. This is on |
be surpoSitiol that the tax would no, !
decrease imports I
- rule. : tariff tax viii reduce tho ,
olurnt OF imports. but the te's dealers
az that tax Of 70 or Is cents on tea
-ould not have that effect The reason =
hey assign for desiring tax : that 4;
oLid exclude the low-grade and su-iri-
Us teas The average import pric-- 81 q
q has decreased from ST. cents Der n
ouAd IN ls-3. tie year after the tax i
= removed 70 no cents in the fiscal =
ear 1>-5. Consumers. however. have =
zen accustomed 70 paying ~ TO @ :
snts a pound r.. good tea. ard think :,
nat when Tess is asked the article i :.
Z good Hence has grown up the a
-actice Of giving crockery with TEA. :
.hich the dealers say domoral:zes the
-ade. a
This may be true. but il I. best not Z
, put too much stress on the f1ae-spun | i
lecries Of interested parties. The FAC; I
mains that tea IS an article on " hich p
s.00O.o 600 or $1,000. 600 OF revenue r-lav .
: raised without increasing the burden :
consumers seriously. IL at all If the :
nate wishes 10 raise revenue. IL can 2
mend the house bill by taxing a com =.
odity concerning whose r,evenue-r-.is- I.
e properties there is no doub. al q
/ IL is pretty safe guess. however. 8
at this will not be done. because II :.
ould not turn any revenue into the
'ckets 81 individuals. which Is the pc 4
iliar characteristic of tariff for pro- =.
.fr-n II ~.srsaxfffa Ca,~..-- r~-r