The Daily Texarkanian., 1897-05-06
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES Ae-
sURolTlEs OF THE olNGLEY BILL.

and Discourage American Labor--MaISes
Some Serious Reflections Upon the Mo.
Kinley Bin as Revenue Producer.
x-Postmastor General William L.
Wilson is credited with the authorship
Of the tariff bill now 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 not nearly as good as when
it first passed the house. II was, how
ever, great improremontupon the Nc
Kinley bill and is q model rs compared
with the Dingley monstrosity We
quote tho following from Mr., Wilson'S
criticism Of the Mckinley and Dngley
bills In recent number Of tho Now
York Herald
These bills aro so nearly identical in
general structure and particular items,
excepting as to the sugar schedule that
1t may be well to consider the effect Of
the first bill ON tho revenue Of the coun-
try. Both bills are vast and yoluminous
schemes Of clasataxation, the production
Of public revenue being IN incident and
entirely subordinate to tho purpose Of
taxing all the American people for the
benefit Of n small part Of the people,
The protootonist has but one romody,
which he applies whether the revenue
bo redundant or deficient If times are
prosperous and moro money than Is
needed pours into the treasury ho in
oroasos taxes by q scheme that turns
the larger part Of their Ny0ils into pri.
vOto pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. II times are depressed aud less
money than 10 needed pours into tho
treasury, ho soi2es the proIcxt Of in
oroosing public revenues by adding
enormously TO the amount Of private ok
action.
The act Of 1890, whatever It's other
effects did reduce revenue, From
large surplus II swept us hoodlonR to u
deficiency, although II weighted the
people with heavier taxes and although
another law, passed IN July, l800
turned into the treasury M u part Of tho
general assets TO BIO used for paying OK
pondituros u trust fund Of moro than
SOD, 600, 900 which belonged to tho ma.
tional banks and had always been hold
for tho redemption Of their notes,
Even before the Harrison odminisrN-
tion ondod we should have been CON
frontod with large deficiency but for
the use Of this trust fund and the fur
ther fOot that Secretary Foster, by
change Of bookkeeping, added to the
treasury balance $50, 100000 Of token
and subsidiary coin not boforo treated
M n tronsury asset, With these oxtraOr'
dinary additions, even, we wound up tho
fiscal year June 80, 1893, with n sur
plus Of only e9,84l,O14 Oa against
surplus for The fiscal year Juno 30,
1890, Of over e8b,000,000 before the
above trust fund aud subsidiary coin
wore touched, And during tho fiscal
year ended Juno 30, 1904, through all
Of which tho Mckinley bill was In force
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
tho amount Of 900, s0B, ,200, notwith.
standing tho fact chat tho expenditures
Of Tho government were $40, 0bp GA
loaa than In the preceding year
This atntcmont shows how absurd and
groundleaa IL the claim constantly made
by the protoetionista that recent deHoita
In revenue Nre due TO the substitution
of tho existing tufi1 for the Mckinley
bill Nothing IL moro oortoin than that
II tho bill had been IN force during tho
last throo years the annual deficit would
have boon immonsoly swollen, whilo tho
people IN aoAa0n Of depression aud
hard times would have staggered under
much heavier burdens Of taxation, Even
In thia disastrous ported, customs dulioa
undor tho existing law have increased
from less than 9l9a,000, 600 Ia 1904,
tho last yoar Of the Mckinley bill, to
even alba, 900, 900 In 1898 and to over
$780, 600, 900 in 1906.
In tho sugar schedule alone The bal
hnoe in favor Of tho existing law ID
about 600, 600, 600, Tho oustoma royo.
nuo reached nearly slO, OOO, coo, scarce.
" any Of which would have been re-
oeiyable under the Mckinley bill,
That the Dingley bill, present eondi=
tiona considered 10 the most ultra pro-
teotiye tariff ever proposed 10 bo enhetl
I'd IN this country plainly appears from
Chairman Dingloy'B statement chat II
levied ON the impoftationa Of the last
fiscal year it would have increased tho
revenue all9, 900, 000=that Ia to aay, 10
would have gathered from an impdftaa
tion Of e77b, ,7al, aO4 Of imported mer-
ehnndia0 tho enormous sum Of Haiai
900, 900, which N nearly 100000, 600
more than amy customs revenue ever
collected ia one year IN this country IA
the past And 20 say that ~ rates will
probably check dHtiable imports TO the
extent Of reducing the estimate to eIO
600, 600 IL only another way of saying
That to that oxiont such rates. nio pro.
hibitory
American consumers are shut Ia the
home market 20 be preyed upon by COM
binatiens and trusts without r6ssibili=
~ Of relief from outside competition,
Such combinations, by Joining 10 keep
up prices hnd 20 ontttl productions
wngo moro mciolloas war against the
employment, the opportunities aud The
compensation Of American labor than
any possible competition from abroad
could do.
The falling or Of imp6tlaii0nH under
the present law dlHpols tho Illusion
that the American labmor ID anywhere
deprived 0f employment by The import
tation Of foreign products The crafty.
ing increase IA our exports Of manulaea
lures Is equally strong proof that those
laws arc helping uH 10 enter and com