St. Paul daily globe., 1896-04-18
JUGGLING WITH STATISTICS.

s.
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 untruthb or the semblance Of 1t.
Rebuking Gem Ciarkson for having
said that Mckinley is the champion
OF an extreme, ultra high protective
tariff, 1t says that ,''.it Is an astonishing
blunder for a Republican to speak Of
that act $500 as oone Of extreme pro-
lection" It then proceeds to show, in
Its own peculiar way, tina. all former
Republican tariffs were higher. 1t says
that the Mckinley act produced duties
from 1925 that averaged 21.66 per
cent, while the act of 1883, during its
first three years. averaged BOSS per
cent, and the average under the law
in force from 1869 to 1871 was i1.94 per
cent NJ it
Waav1ng the slight inaccuracies in
these percentages. which appear on
examination Of the treasury reports
for no prudent person will accept the
figures given by these aritnmeticaI
bunglers and tricksters without inYes-
tigation-the 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
dutiable or on the free list. This is a
very transparent fraud, this computa-.
ton Of duties on imports that pay no
duty, in order to cast liscredit on
former Republican tariffs and make. a
better showing for what 1t termed,
when first enacted, 'the best and BRAY
est tariff ever enacted" The differ
ence between this and the showing
made by calculating the rate on the
goods on which taxes were laid shows
that Clarkson was right, and the Trib-
une Is not only wrong, but Is easily
convicted Of stupid evasion.
The real question is what was the
average rate of taxes paid on the :luti-
able goods imported Taking the same
tables for the same period we find that
46.OS per cent, for 1SS4-6 ABA per cent,
and for 1924 (McKinley's) 1t Was 40 12
per cent. What it would have been
had 1t lasted longer it's rate Of pro-
gression gives some Indication. The
average was 4S.H per cent in 1882, 1858
per cent in 1893, and 5G.C6 per cent in
its last year. This change came from
the gradual 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 1S69-n the imports paying no taxes
were only about per cent Of ALL By
the time the era of McKinleyisnl hsd
arrived the party had reached the pol.
icy Of putting on the free list every
thing 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, 56 per cent Of all.
Here we have the solution Of that
steady decrease that cut the customs
revenues from $226,54O,O ,O37 in 1890, be-
fore McKinley's act went into effect,
to $129,55S.S92 in its last year. Puttiag
revenue producers, ,asuch us raw sugar,
on the free list depleted the revenue,
while the inordinate taxation Of COM
peting goods decreased their consuln,,-
ton and consequent importation, ard
thus reduced revenue. 1t is this policy
that 1t is proposed to restore If
majority Of the voters are silly
enough to consent But what shall
be thought Of a paper and a candidate
Of that paper. when such methods are
used to bolster up his candidacy and
his cause?