Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-06-16
WILSON Vs. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES AB- suRDlTlES OF THE DlNGLEY BILL.

 Eirley Bil as a Revenue Producer.
 Ex-Postmaster General William L. Wilson is credited with the au thorship of the tariff bill HOW i'll force. His hands were tied so that he could net make the bill nearly as good as he de sired to make it, and the bill as finally passed was not reerly as gcod as when it first passed the LCase 1t was, how ever, a great improyementupon the Me Kinley bill and is model as compared with the Dingley monstrosity. We quote the following from MT. Wilson s criticism of the Mckinley and Dlngley bills in recent number ct the New York Herald:
 These bills are so nearly identical i'll general structure and particular items, excepting as to the sugar schedule, that E it may be well to consider the effect of the first bill on the revenue Of the eoun- try, Both bills are vast and yoluminous E schemes of class taxation, the production E of public revenue being an incident and entirely subordinate to the purpose Of taxing all the American people for the benefit of a small part of the people. The protectionist has but enc remedy, E which he applies whether the revenue E he redundant CT deficient If times are E prosperous and more money than is E needed pours into the treasury, he in- E creases taxes by scheme that turns E the larger part of their ayails into pri- & yate pockets, and this reduces public 4 revenue. If times are depressed and less E m04ey than is needed pours into the E treasury, he seizas the pretext of in- ereasing public revenues by adding | enormously to the amount of private ex- faction.
 The act of 1890, whatever it's ether Reflects, did reduce revenue From targe surplus it swept US headlong to a Edefcieney, although it weighted the kpeople with heavier taxes and although Eanother law, passed in July, 1890, furned ito 1 he treasury as part of the general assets to be used for paying ex- EpeDditures a trust fund ef more than *t54000, 900 which belonged to the na- I honal banks and had always been held xioT tue redemption of their notes
 8 Even before the Harrison administra- &hon ended we should have been con #fpnted with a large deficiency but fer 4he use of this trust fund and the fur *ter fact that Secretary Foster, by & #Aange of bookkeeping, added to the #neasury balance SEQ, 000, GOO of token #md subsidiary coin not before treated #k treasury asset. With these extraor- dnaIy additions, even, we wound up the #fQal year June 30, 1893, with q sur q EJ D4 3nfplus for the fiscal year June 30, 4Sg0, of over $65, ,000,0 ,000 before the #ltOye trust fund and subsidiary coin sere touched And during the fiscal tear ended June 80, 1894, through all 3fwhieh tho Mckinley bill was i'll force. Expenditures exceeded the revenues to he amount of $69, sos, 260, notwith- Eanding the fact that the expenditures
 tho government were $15. 952. 674 ass than in the preceding year.
 This statement shows how absurd and groundless is the claim constantly made IN the protectionists that recent deficits Areyenue are due to the substitution
 the existing tariff for the Mckinley ll Nothing is more certain than that
 the bill had been in force during the
 a three years the annual deficit would g been immensely swollen, while the 0ple in q season of depression and
 dd times would have staggered under
 &h heavier burdens of taxation. Even
 this disastrous period, customs duties
 Aaer the existing law have increased
 n less than $132, 900, GOO i'll 1894,
 last year of the Mckinley bill, to 4asl52, GOO, GOO in 1895 and to over 8@OO0, ,000 in 1896.
 n the sugar schedule alone the bal
 h favor of the existing law is
 N 5,000, 900. The customs reve-
 reached nearly $40, 0O0 900, scarce
 any Of which would have been re-
 gaole under the Mckinley bill.
 mat the Dingley bill, present condi-
 IFS considered. is the most ultra pro
 ave tariff ever proposed to be enact
 lhls country plainly appears from
 atman Dingley's statement that if
 su on the importations Of the last Il" year 1t would have increased the
 nue Sll2, 900. 000--that is to say, 1t
 k1a nave gathered from an importa- Mu Stfo, 724, ,264 of imported mer-
 uuse the enormous sum of $272,-
 .Vuu' which is nearly $50. 900, 900
 thah any customs revenue ever
 sc'ea in one year in this country i'll
 past And to say that its rates will
 Eau'y check dutiable imports to the
 us ot reducing the estimate to $70,
 wv IS only another way of saying
 W that extent such, rates are pro
 
 1eflcan consumers are shut ill the
 market to be preyed upon by com
 @ons and trusts without possibili-
 'eiief from outside competition.
 combinations. by joining to keep
 nices and to curtail production, more merciless war against the $M@ Oyment tho a,,,,..,.. .... ~. 1 .L o