The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1897-05-13
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES A6-
SURDITlES OF THE DINGLEY BILL

and Discourage American Labor-Makes
Some Serious Reflections Upon the Mo.
Kinley Bill As = Revenue Producer.
Ex-Postmaster 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. 1t 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 S
criticism Of the Mckinley and Dingley
bills in a recent number Of the New
York Herald:
These bills are so nearly identical i'll
general structure and particular items,
excepting as to the sugar schedule, that
it NAV 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
! crcases taxes by a scheme that turns
the larger part Of their avalls into prl-
yatc pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. If times are depressed and less
money than is needed pou1s into the
| treasury, he SEXES the pretext of in
creasing public revenues by adding
| enormously to the amount Of private cx-
action.
The act Of 1890, whatever its other
effects, did reduce revenue. From q
| large surplus it swept us Ecadlong to
| deficiency, although it weighted the
| people with heavier taxes and although
another law, passed i'll July, 1890,
| turned into the treasury as part OF the
| general assets to be used for paying ex-
| penditures Il trust fund of more than
| sod, 900, 900 which belonged to the ma
tlO1ldl DaUkS anu lllu dIN dS D'tu
for the redemption Of their notes.
Even before the Harrison aGministra-
ton ended we should have been con-
fronted with Il large deficiency but for
the use of this trust fund and the fur
thcr fact that Secretary Foster, by a
change Of bookkeeping, added to the
treasury balance $50, 600, 900 of token
| hs,il coin knf1rp trpot nI
| as a treasury asset With these cXtraor-
binary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 80, 1898, with a sur
plus of only $2,341 ,674 as against a
e,rplus for the fiscal year June 80,
| 1890, Of over $50, OOO,O G0 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 i'll force.
| expenditures exceeded the revenues to
the amount of 500, sos, goo, notwith-
standing the fact that the expenditures
of the government were $40, 952, GA
less than i'll the preceding year.
This statement shows how absurd and
| groundlcss is the claim constantly made
| by the prOtectiOnists that recent deficits
III 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 i'll force during the
last three years the annual deficit would
have been immensely swollen, while the
people i'll IL 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 1892, 600, 600 in 1894,
the last year Of the Mckinley bill, to
even sl52, eco, coo i'll 1855 and to over
$50, 600, 600 i'll 1896.
| In the sugar schedule alone the bal
ance i'll favor Of the existing law is
about 500, 600, 900 The customs reve-
nue. reached nearly $40, 600, 600, scarce
ly any of which would have been re-
ccivable under the Mckinley bill.
That the Dingley bill, present condi-
tons considered, is the most ultra pro-
tcctiye tariff ever proposed to be enact
ed i'll this country plainly appears from
Chairman Dinglcy's statement that If
levied on the ilnportatlons of the last
fiscal year it would have increased the
revenue SIP, 900, 000-that is to say, il
| would have gathered from an importa-
ton Of $115, 724, 26l of imported mer-
chandise the enormous sum of s272,
100000, which is nearly 500, 900, O0C
more than any customs revenue evel
collected i'll one year in this country il
the past. And to say that its rates will
probably check dutiable imports to the
extent of reducing the estimate to SO,
OOO, 900 is only another way Of saying
that to that extent such rates are pro
hibitory.
| American consumers are shut i'll the
home market to be preycd upon by com
binatiOns and trusts without POSSIBLE
ty of relief from outside competition
Such combinations, by joining to keel
up prices and to Curtall production
wage moro merciless war against the
employment, the opportunities and thu
compensation of American labor thai
any possible competition from abroad
could do.
The falling off of importations under
the present law dispels the ILLUSION
that the American laborer is anywher,
deprived of employment by the impor
tation of foreign products. The crafty
ing increase Ill our exports of manufac
lures is equally strong proof that thos'
laws are helping US to enter and com
mand new markets, which means no
only larger employment for our arti
rams, but more home consumers for on
farmers
In the new tariff bill spunk is on tn
free list. We have our opinion Of mai
who is compelled to use imported
| rsnnnk D-Phi ladelnhia Call