Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1897-05-06
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES ABB
SURDiTlES OF THE DINGLEY BILL.

/ SURDlTlES OF THE DlNGLEY BILL.
Says 1t Is ssthe Most Ultra Protective Tariff
Ever Proposed win Encourage Trusts
and Discourage American Labor Makes
Some Serious Reflections Upon the Nc
Kinley Bill as Revenue Producer.
Ex-P Postmaster General William L.
Wilson is credited with the authorship
of the tariff bill now in force. 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 monstrosity. We
criticism of the Mckinley and Dingley
bills in a recent number of the New
York Herald:
These bills are so nearly identical in
general structure and particular items,
excepting as to the sugar schedule, that
it may be well to consider the effect Of
the first bill on the revenue of the coun-
| try. Both bills are vast and yoluninous
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 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 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, he 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 a
large surplus it swept us headIong to a
deficiency, although it weighted the
people with heavier taxes and although
another law, passed in July, 1890,
turned into the treasury as part Cf the
general assets to be used for paying ex-
penditures a trust fund of more than
/ $54, 900, 900 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 a 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 500, 600, 900 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 80, 1898, with a sur
plus of only $2,341 ,674 as against
surplus for the fiscal year June 80,
1890, Of over $85, ,000,000 before the
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
were touched. And during the fiscal
year ended June 80, 1894, through all
of which the Mckinley bin was IN force,
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
the amount of 500, 803, 900, notwith-
standing the fact that the expenditures
of the government were $15, 952, 674
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 $132, 600, 900 in 1894,
the last year of the Mckinley bill, to
even $152, 900, 900 in 1895 and to over
$3.50, 900, 900 in 1896.
| In the sugar schedule alone the bal
ance in favor of the existing law is
about $55, 900, 600. The customs .reve-
nue. reached nearly $40, 600, 600, scarce
ly any of which would have been re-
ceivable under the Mckinley bill.
That the Dingley bill, present condi-
tions considered, is the most ultra pro-
tectiye tariff ever proposed to be enact
ed in this country plainly appears from
Chairman Dingley's statement that If
levied on the importations of the last
fiscal year it would have increased the
revenue $112, 900, 000-that is to say, 1t
would have gathered from an importa-
tion Of $775, 724, 264 of imported mer
chandise the enormous sum of $272,-
100000 which is nearly $50, 900, 900
more than any customs revenue ever
collected in one year in this country in
the past. And to say that its rates will
probably check dutiable imports to the
extent Of reducing the estimate to $40, +
100000 is only another way of saying
that to that extent such rates are pro-
hibitory.
American consumers are shut in the
home market to be preyed upon by COM
binations and trusts without pcssik j.
ty of relief from outside compe I'll.
Such combinations, by joining % keep
up prices and to curtail production,
wage more merciless war against the
employment, the opportunities and the
compensation of American labor than
any possible competition from abroad
could do.
The falling off of importations under
the present law dispels the illusion
that the American laborer is anywhere
deprived of employment by the impor-
tation of foreign products. The crafty
ing increase in our exports of manufac-
lures is equally strong proof that those
laws are helping us to enter and com
mand new markets, which means not
only larger employment for our arti-
sans, but more home consumers for our
farmers.
In the new tariff bill spunk is on the
free list. We have our opinion Of man
who is compelled to use imported
"spunk p Philadelphia Call