The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1897-05-11
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES Ae-
SuRDiTlES OF THE DlNeLEY BILL.

Ex-Postmaster General william L
Wilson Is credited with the authorship
Of tho tariff bill now in force. Hi
hands were tied SO that he could no
make the bill nearly as good as he de
sired to make it, and tho bill as flnnll,
passed was not nearly as good as whei
it first passed the house. II was, how
ever, great improvement upon the Nc
Kinley bill and is model as compared
with the Dingley monstrosity. We
quote the following from Mr.. Wilson,
criticism Of tho Mckinley and Dingley
bills In recent number of the New
York Herald.
These bills are 80 nearly identical IN
general structure and particular items,
excepting as to tho sugar schedule, that
10 may be well to consider the effect OF
the first bill ON the revenue of the coun-
try. Both bills are vast and voluminous
schemes Of class taxation, the production
Of public revenue being an incident and
entirely subordinate to the purpose of
taxing all the American people for the
benefit Of small part Of the people.
The protectionist has but one remedy,
which he applies whether the revenue
be redundant or deficient. If times are
prosperous and more money than is
needed pours into the treasury, he in
crenses taxes by scheme that turns
the larger part of their avails into pri-
vnte pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. II times are depressed and less
money than is needed pours into the
treasury, he seizes the pretext of in
creasing public revenues by adding
enormously TO the amount Of private ex-
action.
The act Of 1900, whatever its other
effects, did reduce revenue. From
large surplus II swept us headlong to q
deficiency, although 1t weighted the
people with heavier taxes and although
another law, passed in July, 1890,
turned into the treasury as a part of the
general assets to be used for paying ex-
penditures o trust fund Of more than
$54, 900, 600 which belonged to the ma
tional banks and had always been held
foT the redemption Of their notes.
Even before the Harrison administra-
SFt1l ChuSth WO biOuiu hufO bONh NOh-
fronted with large deficiency but for
tho use Of this trust fund and the fur,
ther fact that Secretary Foster, by u
change Of bookkeeping, added to the
treasury balance $40, 900, 900 of token
and subsidiary coin not before treated
as a treasury asset. With these extraor.
dinary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 80, 1903, with sur
plus Of only $2,34l,674 as against
surplus for the fiscal year June 80,
1890, of over $s5, ,000,0 900 before the
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
were touched. And during the fiscal
year ended June 80, 1904, through all
Of which tho Mckinley bill was in force,
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
the amount of 500, 803, 200, notwith-
standing the fact that the expenditures
Of the government wero $40, 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
II the bill had been in force during the
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
tn this disastrous period, customs duties
under tho existing law have increased
from less than $182, 900, 900 in 1904,
the last year of the Mckinley bill, to
even 9I5e, 900, 600 In 1895 and to over
$l80, 900, 900 In 1906.
In the sugar schedule alone the bal
anoe In favor of the existing law is
about $50, 900, 900. The customs reve-
nue. reached nearly gao 900, 900, scarce
ly any of which would have been re-
ceivable under the Mckinley bill.
That the Dingley bill, present condi-
tions considered, IS the most ultra pro-
tective tariff ever proposed to be enact
ed In this country plainly appears from
Chairman Dingley's statement that If
levied on the importations Of the last
fiscal year 1t wonld have increased the
revenue Sll2, 600, 000-that is to say, 1t
would have gathered. from an importa-
tion Of S776, 7s4. a04 of imported mer-
ehandise the enormous sum of S272,-
900. 900. which is nearly $50, 900, 900
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 dutiable imports to tho
extent Of reducing the estimate to $780,
600, 900 Is only 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 possibili-
ty Of relief from outside competition.
Such combinations. by joining to keep
up prices and to curtail production,
wage more merciless war against the
employment, the opportunities and tho
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 manufac-
lures is equally strong proof that those
laws are helping us to enter aud com
mand new markets, which means not
only larger employment for our arti-
sans, but more home consumers for our
farmers.
Tn the nevv tariff hill enunk Ia IN the |