The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1897-08-28

une, offers the cheerful remarks:
1t does not seem to be the fact
| imports are prohibited, since they
have been $l2,407, l16 in value al
New York alone during three week:
of August, decrease compared with
the same weeks last year of about a
fifth, nor does the new tariff entirely
cut off revenue from customs, since
such revenue in thirteen days of Au
gust was $3,027, 800, against 5,507,.
500 in the same days last year. When
it is considered that the enormous
anticipatory imports were expected
to cut off large share of the reye.
nue. tor some time, and that in the
first three weeks under the new tar
lift the supplies previously in might
be expected to satisfy the market:
almost entirely, it cannot be said
that the new tariff appears prohibi-
tory or destructive of revenue.
This is singularly apologize
tone to be adopted by a defender OF
a law that was represented before its
passage as "a measure of urgent ne
cessity to supply deficiencies in rev
enue. The Tribune thinks that the
new tariff does not "entirely cut off
revenue from CUSTOMS" since it has
enabled us to collect little over
half as much in given time in the
midst of wave of prosperity as we
collected last year in a similar per-
iod under the deficit producing
Wilson law in the depths of hard
times. But the Dingley law purports
| by its title to be IAN act to provide
revenue for the Government" as
well as 'sto encourage the industries
Of the United States" and Congress
was called in extra session to pass
it ON the ground that the needs of
the Treasury demanded an increased
income without moments delay.
In introducing the Senatorial version
of it Senator Aldrich announced
that tariff that left deficit would
be fatal to the party responsible for
it, And now we find the former de-
felt doubled by this urgent revenue
measure, and the chief organ of its
sponsors congratulating itself that
the new law does not entirely cut
Off revenue from customs"
We desire to be perfectly fair, and
hence we freely admit that the reve-
nue. producing capacities of the
Dingley act have not yet been fully
tested, since, as the Tribune says,
there were enormous anticipatory
imports that cut off d large share
of the expected duties. But there
were such imports in anticipation
of the passage of the Mckinley law,
which was much more vulnerable in
that respect than the Dingley act,
since it was pending in Congress
about twice as long, and yet the rev.
enues collected in the first weeks OF
the Mckinley law were vastly great
er than those in the first weeks OF
Dingley act, Notwithstanding the
fact that the former was officially
described as measure "to reduce
the revenues" while the latter is
one ''to provide revenue for the Gov
eminent" Moreover, the bulk OF
the advance imports this year is
composed of articles that were free
of duty under either the Wilson or
the Mckinley law. Wool, for in
stance, was free under the Wilson
law, and hence the heavy anticipate
ry imports of wool cannot account
for the decline in revenues as com
pared with the first weeks under
the Mckinley law, and hence the
fact that Dingley and Aldrich have
given the Sugar Trust present OF
twelve or thirteen million dollars on
lbs 100000 tons Of raw sugar import
ed in anticipation of the new tariff
cannot account for the fact that the
Dingley law in it's infancy produces
less revenue than the Mckinley law
did at the same period.
Perhaps it may be too early yet
for the definite announcement that
the new tariff is an absolute failure
as revenue measure, but all the in
dicatious are that the public will be
ready to confirm the judgment Of
Senator Aldrich by election day
New York journal.