The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1897-08-06
THEIR KNOWN AND ADMITTED EXIST
ENcE DESTROYS THE ONLY DEFENSE
OF THAT SYSTEM.

published by Authority of the Maryland
Democratic Editors AssociationJ
In the last article it was shown that the
great question as to whether protection
to certain American interests should be
the object or merely the incident of tar
if taxation, which had been fought out
between the old Wing party and the
Democratic party in the antebellum pc
Rod OF our history, with the result of A
general acceptance OF the doctrine OF
tariff for revenue with incidental pro
lection" by both political parties and the
elimination OF the question from politi-
cal controversy, had been revived again
after the civil war by the manufacturing
interests OF this country, who, fattened
by the large benefits resulting from the
war tariffs, had become a powerful fac.
tor in American politics. II was shown
that the Republican party, yielding to
the greed Of these special interests. has
sine the war again asserted the doc
trine abandoned by the Wings after the
American manufacturing industry had
passed the "infantile" period, OF making
protection the object of tariff taxation
and so adjusting the schedules as 20
Check imports" That this doctrine.
first fully asserted in the platform OF
1888 had been clearly exemplifed in the
Mckinley law of 1890, which. thouoh it
largely increased the rates the law OF
1883, actually diminished the revenues
resulting to the Government 1t was
also stated that the Dingley bill. Just
enacted into law. is distinct reassertion
OF the extraordinary principles upon
which the Mckinley law rested with an
intensified al ~licatior to many articles
which enter into general consumption in
this country 1t is proposed, in this ar
ticle, to point out some of the excuses
and enormities of the Dingley law.
ENORMITY OF THE DINGLEY
, LAW.
The Mckinley law, the vicious prin-
ciple upon which it rested and its oner-
GUS arden upon the masses OF the PEG
pie were so thoroughly discussed and
exposed in the campaign of educa-
ton" which interviewed between the date
OF its enactment in 1890 and the Ma
tional election OF 1892, when it was so
emphatically condemned by the Ameri-
can people, that it ought to be sufficient
to ensure the same emphatic, popular
condemnation OF the Dingley law, to
show that it is substantial re-enactment
OF the burdensome provisions OF the
law OF 1900 But it is really much
worse, While it measures quite up to
the standard of the Mckinley law in all
Its provisions and does not surrender
any OF the exactions OF that oppressive
measure, the Dingley law goes quite be-
yond 1t in many of its details 1t is
shown by the figures f the Treasury ex-
perts that the average ad valorem rate
OF the Dingley law is 81 per cent, as
against 40 per cent in the Mckinley
law and 50 per cent in the Wilson law.
the Republican sponsors for the Ding
ey law do not controvert these figures
but they maintain that the Dingley duty
on raw sugar (while under the McKin-
ley law all sugar except the refined ar
ucle was free) partly explains the higher
ad valorem average OF the Dingley law.
The TACT that the Wilson law, like all
ether Democratic tariff laws, imposed a
ialr revenue duty upon raw sugar, while
cutting down the Republican differen-
tlal ON refined, might also be invoked to
show that the real excess OF average OF
the Mckinley law over the Wilson law
Is not disclosed by the above figures.
There are other devices, such as small
nominal duties imposed Tor effect on
certain agricultural products, b. which
the average rate Of duty is apparently
lowered