The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1897-05-13
WILSON vs.. DINGLEY.
Ex TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES THE
DlNGLSY BILL.
Says 1t Is "thc Most Ultra Protective
Tariff Ever Proposed"--Makcs Some
serious Reflections Upon the Mckin-
ley Bill as Revenue Producer.
Will Encourage Trusts,

| scrlOuS NCHcCtfOnS Upon tHc NC n IN
icy Bill as Revenue Producer.
| Will Encourage Trusts.
Ex-Postmaster General William L.
Wilson is credited with the authCrshir
of the tariff bill Eow III fcrce 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 monstrcsity. 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 rs to the sugar schedule, t;,at
it may lie well 10 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 a 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
creases taxes by a scheme that turns
the larger part of their avails into pri.
vate pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. If times are depressed and less
money than is needed pours into the
treasury, nc seiZss the pretext of in
creasing public revenues by adding
enormously to the amount of private ex-
action.
The act of 1890, whatever its other
effects, did reduce revenue. From
large surplus it swept us headlong to
deficiency, although it weighted the
people with heavier taxes and although
another law, passed in July, 1890,
turned into the treasury as part of the
general assets TO be used for pay ing ex-
penditures trust fund of more than
$54, 900, GOO which belonged to the ma
tional banks and had always been held
for the redemption Of their notes.
Even before the Harrison administra-
tion ended we should have been con-
fronted with large deficiency but for
the use of this trust fund and the fur
ther fact that Secretary Foster, by
change of bookkeeping, added to the
treasury balance $40, 100000 of token
and subsidiary coin not before treated
as a treasury asset. With these extraor.
dinary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 30, 1898, with sur
plus of only $2,341,674 as against
surplus for the fiscal year June so,
1890, of over ss5,000,000 before the
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
were touched. And during the fiscal
year ended June so, 1894, through AL
of which the Mckinley bill was in force.
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
the amount of 500, 500, ,26O, notwith-
standing the fact that the expenditures
Of the government were $15, 952. GA
less than in the preceding year.
This statement shows how absurd and
groundless is the claim constantly made
by the protectionists that recent deficits
in 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 in force during the
last three years the annual deficit would
have been immensely swollen, while the
people in a 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 S132,000, 900 in 1894,
the last year Of the Mckinley bill, to
even S152, 600. Geo in 1895 and to ever
sl6O, 600, 600 in 1896.
In the sugar schedule alone the bal
ance in favcr CT the existing law is
about 500, 5,COO, 900. The customs reve-
nue reached nearly $40, 600, 600, scarce
~ any of which would have been re-
under the Mckinley bill.
That the Dingley bill, present condi
tons considered, is the most ultra pro-
tective tariff ever proposed to be enact
ed in this country plainly appears from
Chairman Dingley's statement that if |
levied Oh the importations Of the last |
fiscal gear it would have increased the
revenue &l12, GOO, 000-that is to say, it |
would have gathered from an importa- |
lion of S715, 724, 264 Of imported mer-
,handise the enormous sum of $272,- !
300, GOO, which is nearly $50, LOCO, 600 |
more than any customs revenue ever |
collected in one year in this country in |
-he PAST. And to say that its rates will
check dutiable imports 20 the
axtent Of reducing the estimate to S70.-
COO, 600 is only another way of saying
hat to that extent such rates are pro-
American consumers are shut in the |
nome market to he preyed upon by COM
linations and trusts without possibili-
y of relief from outside competition
Such combinations. by joining TO keep
Up prices and to curtail production,
wage more merciless war against the
the opportunities and the
of American labor than
my possible competition from abroad
Uuld do.
The falling off of importations under
he present law dispels the illusion
hat the American laborer is anywhere
cprivcd of employment ny the impor
alton of foreign products. The crafty
ng increase in our exports of manufac-
ures is equally strong proof that those
avs are hpIpiup us to enter and com |
nand new markets, which means not
My larger employment for our arti
ans, but mere home CONSUMERS for our
aTmers.
Proiuct of NckiuIeyism.
\ legislative committee which has
'een investigating the condition of the
oal miners in the Pittsburg district
as revealed a shocking state Of affairs.
he operators themselves We're nut lln. |