New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-07-16
TARIFF DIFFERENCES.

Should the Tariff bill be imperilled by dis-
agreement? Clearly not, on points which nelther
involve principle nor endanger the success Vi
the party by which the protective poiicy, II ~
all. must be maintained Nearly all the diner
ences between the two houses would be ehdeu
In an hour II this conception of duty were iai'h-
fully observed Thus II Is question OF pOilcy,
but not of principle, whether only $500 tons OF
cotton ties imported free of duty in 1885, AmeEl-
can makers usually underselling foreign, should
ne either excluded or made to pay a duty OF
s5O OOO more or less. If reeded votes are llaD!e
10 be lost by insisting on either side. concession
may become duty.
The question whether cotton and grain bags
and burlaps shall be dutiable may be ques-
ton of principle, if the most careful caicuia,
tion shows that otherwise the bill would mol
Weld sufficient revenue. duty nearly double
that adopted by the House on burlaps yielded
I'm 1890 s2D5331 and duties nearly double
those of the House on grain bags yielded So30-
CA and on cotton bags $12970. A larger reve-
nue.. probably more than $2,600,0O0. might with
reason be expected from the lower House duties
on these articles and ii should be matter OF
prjncip,e with every Republican not 10 cast any
vote which may leave the Government without
ADEQUATE revenue. Whether the pending meas
ure will provide sufficient revenue without these
additions however Is question to be answered
nv n close and candid scrutiny Of the best est
mates Obtaipable RI the additional revenue is
needed in the sober Judgment of Republicans
they must Judge for themselves whether few
Senators from wool growing States will venture
10 vote against wool tariff because they can
not get free buriaps and bags.
The wool duty itself presents question which
cannot he considered one Of principle, unless II
be seriously believed that the wool growing III
dustry would be prosrated by duties not higher
than those under which 1t prospered in lSD-92
or that the carpet manufacture would be ruined
or seriously injured by cent or two more duty
on third-class woods. The plain truth is that
the manufacture has strong defence in the du
ties on imported carpets. which average on all
important grades from 20 to S2ls per cent, while
under the low 40 per cent duties OF the present
law the entire importations have been practical
" un.mportant IT. on the other hand. the duty
on carpet wool is essential to secure the sup
port Of needed votes. it may clearly be matter
OF principle not TO endanger the measure by
persistence In opposing IT.
1t cannot be a matter Of principle TO impose
upon white pine lumber duty twice that i'm
posed by the Mckinley tariff even II II he
granted that later conditions render some
what higher duty OF much Importance. Neither
can II be a matter Of principle with those who
represent any Western State TO endanger the
passage OF tie Tariff bill because their cOnsti-
uenfs may have to pay little more for lumber
OF that particular kind when other lumber can
be bought In any quantity at lower prices. This
difference Ia obviously one which ought to he
settled without difficulty by concession or com
promise.
The sugar schedule presents a greater diff
Guilty. because there Is on the one side an honest
belief that an industry may be exposed 70 de-
str,ictiye competition with bounty-paid sugar.
unless the duty on refined Is more than an
eighth Of a cent. while on the other side there Is
an equally honest belief that the provision for
comnteryailing duties on bounty-paid sugar will
prevent any such injury. and that the cause of
Protection and the Republican party would be