The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1897-06-12
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES ABB
suRDITiEs or THE OlNeLEy BILL

Postmaster General William L. |
Wilson is credited with the authorship
Of the tariff bill low in force. His
hands were tied so that he could not
make the bill nearly as good as he de-
sired to make it, and the bill as finally
passed was lot nearly IS coed as vixen
it first passed the Ecuse. 1t was, how
ever, a great improvemontnpoa the Nc
Kinley bill and is model as compared
with the Dingley mopsircsity. We
quote the following FROM Mr. Wilson's
criticism Of The Mckinley and Dingley
bills in recent nusher Of the New
York Herald:
These bills are so nearly identical in
general structure srd lartieniar items,
excepting IS to the sn.ar scheanle. that
it may be well 10 ccusifcr the eject Of
the first bill On the reveare Of the eoun-
try. Both bills are vast ard veluminons
schemes of class taxation. the TreescSion
of public revenue b. ing an incident and
entirely subordinate r. the purpose of
taxing all the American people for the
benefit of small f,s,; cf the people.
The proteetics BIAS Int one i cdy,
which he s.pp...i hctAcr the rcycsue
be redundant or dc1tient. If tiros are
prosperous and n,e.c mercy than is
needed pours into tic treasury. he in
creases taxes by scheme that tu-ns
the larger part Of TIE il avails into pri-
vate pockets, and this recYtts public
revenue. If times are DEPRESSED and less
money than is noeGed pcrss into the
treasury, be seizss the pretext Of in
oreasing public revenues by adding
enormously to the a.. eunt of private ex-
action.
The act of 1890, whatever its other
effects did reduce revenue. Fscm a
large surplus il swept rs headlong to a
deficiency, attic i it S.tiri q the
people with heaN taxes am hoegh
another law, il IL 1850,
turned into the e.. s,y - Il 1t q tho
general assets TO he L paying cx-
go, goo. 600 which ts,s4.ecd 10 the IA
tional banks aud had always heca held
for the redemption eff their netes.
Even before the Lar Ca administers
tion ended vo shcual have been CON
fronted with a larsc deficiency but fer
the use Of this trust fund and the fur
ther fact that Secretary Foster, BY a
change of bookkeeping, added TO the
treasury balance $40, 600, 600 of token
and subsidiary coin not tciore treated
as treasury asset. With these extraor-
binary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 80. 1898, with sur
plus of only 50, 34l,674 as against
surplus for the fiscal year June 80,
1890, of over $50, 000,0 900 before the
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
were touched. And during the fiscal
year ended june 80, 1894, through all
of which the Mckinley bill was in force,
expenditures exceeded the revenues TO
the amount of 500, sos, 260, notwith-
standing the fact that the expenditures
of the government were SIS, 952, GA
less than in the preceding year.
This statement shows how absurd and
groundless is the claim constantly made
by the protectionists that recent deficits
in revenue are due to the substitution
of the existing tariff for the Mckinley
bill. Nothing is more certain than that
If the bill had been in force during tho
last three years the annual deficit would
have been immensely swollen, while the
people in season of depression and
hard times would have staggered under
much heavier burdens of taxation. Even
in this disastrous period, customs duties
under the existing law have increased
from less than s132, 000, 600 in 1894,
the last year of the Mckinley bill, to
even s152, coo, 600 in 1895 aud to over
sl6O, 600, 600 ia 1896.
In the sugar schedule alone the bal
ance in favor of the existing law is
about $55, 600, coo. The customs reve-
nue. reached nearly $40, 600, 900, scarce
ly any of hich would have been re-
ceivable un the Mckinley bill.
That the Dinglcy bill, present condi-
tons consi red, is the most ultra pro-
tective tali ever proposed TO be enact
cd in this country plainly appears from
Chairman DiDgley's statement that If
levied on { o importations of the last
fiscal year il would have increased the
revenue SIP, 600, 000-that is TO say, it
would have gathered from an importa-
ton Of $775, 724, 264 of imported mer-
chandise tie enormous sum of S272,-
600, 600, which is nearly $50, 900, 600
more than any customs revenue ever
collected in one year in this country in
the past. And to say that its rates will
probably check dutiablc imports to the
extent of reducing the estimate to $780,
eco, 900 is criy another WAY of saying
that to that extent such rates are pro-
hibitory.
American consumers are shut in the
home market to be preyed upon by com
binations and trusts without possible
ty Of relief from outside competition.
Such combinations, by joining to keep
up prices and to cnrtail production,
wage more merciless war against the
employment, the opportunities and the
compensation Of American labor than
any possible competition from abroad
could do.
The falling off Of importations under
the present law dispels the illusion
that the American laborer is anywhere
deprived of employment by the impor-
tation Of foreign products. The crafty
ing increase in our exports Of manufae-
turas is equally strong proof that those
laws are helping us to enter and com
mand new markets, which means not
only larger employment for our arti-
sans, but more home consumers fer our
farmers.
In the new tariff bill spunk is on the
free list. We have orr opinion of a man