New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-02-11
. Distinctly BRITISH ARGUMENT.

Eron "The London Economist" comes an ar
,umcnt for which It's excuse may be ignorance,
but which no American could use WITHOUT Ihor''
discrcdt. I'm order TO prove that tine io"el
duties of the Wilson tariff have not injured
american Industries by subjecting them 10 Il
"kepner foreign competition it asserts that
"imports of foreign goods into the States have
''of late fallen off enormously. 1t then cItes
the value of total imports i'm 1892 and In 1879.
Is il conceivable that the editor Of an English
financial journal is ignorant Of the fact that the
decrease in aggregate imports is result ano
proof Of business depression here? An Ameri-
can so ignorant would not be thought mt for
any place requiring n knowledge OF business
affairs Or is the English editor unable 10 see
that the decrease In aggregate imports Dy no
means proves that there has been no increase
IN those imports which compete with American
Industries? An American writer using such an
argument would at once be set down by MS
readers as guilty of deliberate niisrepresenta-
ton.
There Is no excuse for the plea that The diff
ference between free and dutiable imports to
this country Is not known to Englishmen. The
imports free of duty have decreased $SSOOOOOO
since 1892 but the dutiable imports have In
creased S40OOO00O. This increase, comparing
the fiscal years 1892 and 1896, occurs notwith-
standing the fact that Of wool alone, formerly
dutiable imports in 1896 were reckOned In the
free class and amounted to 230,911,413 pounds
and in value to S32451 242 against $136SS1OS
i'm 1892 so that the other free imports. exclusive
OF this one item, were smaller by SlO1 100000
In 1896 than In 1899. No one can be ignorant
that imported wool has by competition de-
pressed wool growing, rendered the production
unproGtable and caused the Strengthening of
millions of sheep Wool should be reckOned, in
such comparison, with the dutiatle products
which most affect American industry by COM
petition. in which the increase would then APP
pear SOB 100000 against a decrease in nOn-com-
peting articles of Sl01OOO.0O0.
Obviously. the decrease in total imports does
not tend in the least to disprove the statement
that imports of woollen goods. about S1S0O0O0O
greater in 1896 than in 1892, do depress an
American industry, and also imports Of cotton
goods 100000 greater, and so Of many other
branches. Is It an answer at all to the evil
dence that home industries have been depressed
"by subjectng them TO a keener foreign com
petition" to say that "the pretence is ridicu-
lous" because the total value Of imports Is
smaller than in 1892? Is there any Englishmau,
even slightly dCuldlllttu W NH INC 'ouh'iou vi
business in his own country, who does not
know that the effect of increased competition
here has been greatly intensified by the admis-
sion Of a vast quantity of goods with duties
levied according to the sworn or invOced value,
and that the English market for manufactured
goods has been vastly increased by false Oaths
taken to evade even the reduced duties now in
force?
The courtesy Of discussion seems to make 1t
necessary to suppose that there is such an Eng
lishman, and that he sheds darkness on the
world through 1.-THE London Economist" If
that paper speaks In good faith what else can
be said? Here are wOoen goods alone, of
which the invOiced value is only S53, 404, 400,
though trained officials and competent experts
reckon that the actual value is over $70O0O.0O0,
and the increase compared with 1892 about $50.
100000. or nearly 100 per cent, but The London
Economist" sOlemnly asserts that it is "ridicu-
lous' to suppose that this has contributed to
the depression Of trade in this country be-
cause the total value Of all imports. according
to invoices largely dishonest, is smaller than in
1892,