Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1896-01-30
THE REVENUE BILL.
"A Measure That Is Full of False Pr
lenses,

bHE HGS6aNo6 DtIes
IA Measure That Is Full of False Pre-.
IL lenses.
The more the measure is examined
the greater becomes the doubt whether
The Dingiey tariff bill is revenue bill
or not. There has never been any doubt
that the assertion that it was intended
to get rid of the dc felt in the treasury
was distinctly a false pretense. There
is no deficit in the treasury, but on The
contrary a surplus of more than $780,,
100000. How it got there is immateri-
ni to this inquiry. though it has fire.
quently been explained in these col
umns. It is sufficient that it is there
and that it is likely to increase rather
than diminish.
But there are other reasons why the
Dingley bill is not properly revenue
bill. 1t was avowedly framed to in
crease the protection on competitive
articles. Besides, il increases every ex-
'sting tax except that on the best rev
enue commodity imported. namely,
sugar. Senator Jones. of Nevada, rb-
jected to it because there was no in
crease in the duty on sugar. In doing
this, he was not looking to revenue, but
was solicitous to give further protec-
ton to beet sugar mills. Nevertheless,
sugar gives large amount of revenue
to a small per cent. of protection, and
this is one reason why the republicans
wish to let it alone. The chief reason,
however, is because they dare not Of
fend the sugar trust, but are also afre id
TO grant it any additional favors. He-
ing between the people on one side aud
the trust on the other, they prefer to
let sugar alone.
1t was pretended when the Dinghy
bill was first introduced that it would
afford $40,OO0,OOO additional revenue.
The mere the bill is studied the less
probable this proposition appears. 1t
is based in part on the theory that the
imports of wool VIII be as great when it
is taxed as when l. is free. The same
mistake is made as to woolens, which
are not now free, but upon which 60
per cent. of the Mckinley rates are to
be imposed in addition to the rates of
the Wilson bill. Both these conten-
tons are absurd. On all other taxed
commodities the Dingley bill proposes
is an open question whether this will
not check importaJ;ons to such an eS-
tent as to reduce rather than raise the
revenue. The conclusion of several ex-
Perts who have made estimates is to
the effect that the increase in revenue
will not amount to half, or perhaps lot
quarter, OF S40,000.0O0.
There are other articles which could
easily be made to yield considerable
revenue without causing the consumer
tc pay any tribute to home producers.
There is tea, for example, many of the
dealers in which desire to see 1t taxed
10 or Is cents a pound. Prior to 1870
it was taxed IS cents n pound. In that
year the tax was reduced to IS cents.
In 1872 it was put on the free list, and
las remained there ever since. In 1895
we imported upward of 10000
pounds, which, at 10 cents pound,
would have yielded S9,7O0.0OO ii. reven
ne; at Is cents, S14.55O,0O0. This is on
the supposition that the tax would not
decrease imports.
AS q rule, a tariff tax will reduce tn"
volume of imports, but the tie dealers
say that a tax of 10 or Is cents on tea
would not have that effect. Th.: reason
they assign for desiring tax is that it
would exclude the lo.y-grade ami spuri-
GUS teas. The average import price OF
tea has decreased from 37.7 cents per
pound in 1873, the year after the tax
was removed, to 14.6 cents in the fiscal
year 1895. Consumers, however, have
been accustomed to paying 81 to 60
cents a pound for good tea, and think
that when less is asked the article is
o. good. Hence has grown up the
practice of giving crockery with tea,
which the dealers say demoraiizes the
trade.
This may be true, but it is best not
to put too much stress on the fine-spuE
theories of interested parties. The fact
lemains that tea IS an article On which
SO, 900, 900 or $4,000, 900 of revenue may
be raised without increasing the burden
of consumers seriously, if at all. Ii the
senate wishes to raise revenue, il can
amend the house bill by taxing a com,
modify concerning whose revenue-rais-
ne properties there is no doubt at
I'll. 1t is pretty safe guess. however.
that this will not be done. because It
would not turn any revenue into the
rockets of individuals. which IS the pc
GUITAR ci,nra cteristic of a tariff for pro-
tection.-Louisv:l!e Courier-Journai.