Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1897-08-06

OF the New Law with the Wilson, ana
and an Estimate of the Revenue 10 he
Derived.
Comparison between the new and the
old tarff-between the Dgley and the Will
son bills-is made somewhat difficult be-
cause of a change in the method of assess
| ing duties. The rates in the Wilson bill
were purposely based upon value as far as
possible; the rates in the Dingley bill have
purposely been made specific as nearly as
| possible. Much can be said in favor of
both systems of imposing import taxes.
| The ad valorem rate is theoretically fair,
but the revenue huctuates with the value
of the imports quantities remaining the
same), and the protection afforded by the
duty to home manufactures is least when
it is most needed, /. e., when the foreign
values are least. There is the further OBJ
! lection to ad valorem rates that they invite
| fraud in valuation. The objections to a
| specific rate are that they are unjust, i'm
! posing a heavier proportionate tax on low
! priced good, than on hgh-priced goods,
| but specific duties put check upon fraud,
and afford .he degree Of protection prom
! ised on the face of the law. Occasionally
compound duties are imposed, based upon
| both quantity and value. but the system
| is Objectionable on account of its complex
| ity. Just as the Democrats decided in fa-
vor Of al valorem dutles the Republicans
| decided in favor Of specific duties, so that
| the Wilson ana Dingey bills differ radi-
cally in these respects.
The Wilson bill, though not wholly con-
sstent provided in large measure for free
raw materials; the Dingley bill, on the
| ground that farmers are entitled to pro-
lection as well as manufacturers, rejects
the policy Of free raw materials. The i'm
position of duty on wool, hides, etc, by
adding to the cost of the materials of man
ufacture, compels the imposition of com
pensatory dtuies. Thus, on manufactures
of wool there are some very high duties,
| ranging as high as III per cent. \ part
OF this high duty is intended to compen-
safe the manufacturer for the increased
cost of his raw material. Thus on one
class of worsted goods the duty will be
about 81 cents per pound. OF this duty
~ cents will be compensatory, covering
the duty on the raw material, and % cents
per pound will be the amount of protection
afforded the manufacturer. The average
al valorem rates are all higher than in the
Wilson bill. The average on cotton goods
is raised from 1915 per cent to j4.l4 per
cent; on manufactures of flax from &C. IS
to 1872 per cent, this being intended to
encourage the establishment of the linen
industry; on wool and its products the
average per cent of duty is Sl.51 per cent,
as compared with 62 per cent, and on
silk and silk goods 1t is j3 50, as compared
with 1876. These averages, however, are
somewhat misleading. A heavy duty is
imposed upon lemons, oranges, currants
and pineappes for the benefit of Florida
and California fruit growers, and the tax
upon such wines as California produces is
about 400 per cent al valorem. This
concession to relatively few farmers
was made necessary to in'ure the vote of
Senator Jones, of Nevada, for the bill
The worst schedule in the bill is uudoubt-
edly the sugar schedule, though the eX-
perts and statistical rs are not agreed as to
how the percentage of protection to the
trust will compare with that u Lder the Will
son bill. Charles II. Evans, an expert
who has been engaged in some capacity in
the preparation of all the tariff bills since
1872, figures the percentage at "A l6 against
40 o. under the Wilson law. Mr.. Evans
has also figured out q comparison of the
rates under the two laws as whole.
The comparison places the average duty
rate under the new law at SO per cent
ad valorem as against an average of 40. 10
under the Wilson law, the averages being
figured up on the basis of value of 1896.
The Wilson bill was far from being
free trade or even a tariff-for- only
measure; the Dingley bill is a radical pro-
tective measure. With respect to its reve-
nue. features, the increase of duties will, of
course, produce an increase of revenue,
provided importations remain the same;
but it is the distinct purpose of the bill to
reduce importations. If the imports should
be the same as in 1896 the revenue would
be increased from S155, 625, OF to $685.
105, no. an increase of S113, ,479, 793, but
owing in part to stimulated imports of
sugar and wool, amounting to nearly
years supply of both, the increase for the
first year at least is not estimated at more
than $20,000,000 to S25, ,00C, ,000
The main dependence of the new tariff
for revenue increasing purposes is upon
the sugar and wool schedules. Increased
mportations due to revival of business
may help to increase the revenue, for COM
parison has been made with a dull year;
but unless there should be increased i'm.
portations of foreign products as whole
the revenue may not be increased to an
amount sufficient to cover the expenses of
the government.