The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1897-08-07

Senate by Senator w hlte, OF CalliOrnld,
which will be found on pages 1870 to 1876
of the current Congressional Record, the
Dingley rates are shown to exceed those OF
the Mckinley law about 60 per cent. and
downward on about 120 articles, many Of
them of general use and consumption.
Among these is anthracite or hard coal,
the kind used for household fuel, upon
which duty of 70 cents ton is levied.
This kind of coal was free in the Mckinley
law, as it was also in the Wilson law, and
has always been in Democratic laws. The
Democrats taxed only soft or bituminous
coal, which is used only in the furnaces of
railroad locomotives and in the steam power
of the factories of rich corporations. Other
articles in this list upon which the McKin-
ley duties are increased are camphor, chalk,
chloride ef lime, spirit varnishes, different
kinds of paint, opium, morphine, different
kinds of chemical acids chlorate Of potash,
chlorate of soda, soda ash, and number
of other chemicals of general use, pumice
stone, asphaltum, different kinds of glass
and glassware, freestone, granite, sand
stone, scissors and shears and blades of the
same, finished or unfinished, watches,
watch cases and movements and watch
jewels, clapboards, shingles, raw sugar and
mOlasses, oranges, lemons, lines, cocoa
nuts, pineapples, chocolate, mineral waters,
ginger ale, different manufactures of cotton,
hemp, different kinds Of carpet, paper,
feathers for beds, hides of cattle, leather,
musical instruments, umbrellas, parasols
and sunshades.
THE AVERAGE OF DUTIES DELUsIVE.
When it is stated as fact shown by
the Treasury experts that the average ad
valorem of the rates levied by the Nc
Kinley law is 81 per cent. startling view
of its oppressive burdens is undoubtedly
revealed, and one which would have
alarmed our antebellum ancestors, who
believed that ''eternal vigilance is the
price of liberty, into heroic resistance.
But the fact is these figures, astounding
as they are, do not adequately tell the tale,
as will appear by further inspection of
the table of figures prepared by Treasury
Expert Evans, and presented by Senator
White, to which reference has already
been made. There it is shown that upon
52 article, many of them necessarily con-
sumed by the masses of the people, the
duties range from 100 to 224 per cent.
Among these are common window glass,
upon which the duty ranges, according to
size, from 107 to 1913 per cent; pen knives
or pocket knives of the cheaper qualities,
upon which the duty is III per cent;
woolen goods of the different descriptions,
upon which the duty ranges from lO2 per
cent on the better qualities and 119 per
cent on the cheaper qualities of tannels
up to III per cent on the cheaper quail
ties of woolen or worsted shawls; the cheap
er quality of blankets, upon which the
duty is 125 per cent; wool hats, upon
which the duty is III per cent on the
better qualities and 2O3 per cent on the
cheapest quality; felts, apon which the
duty is 1O4 per cent on the better quail
ties and 224 per cent on the cheapest
quality; pulp, paper and books, upon
which the duty is 200 per cent.
The same table shows that upon 81
other articles, also of general use, the duty
ranges from IS to 100 per cent. In this
class are found wooden manufactures, such
as shawls, fannels, blankets, dress goods,
cloths and ready made clothing of better
quality than those above enumerated IN
the class above 100 per cent; carpets OF
different descriptions, felts of the higher
qualities, pocket knives of better quality
than those enumerated in the class bearing
above 100 per cent duty, glass and glass
ware of a better quality than that enum-
Grated in the higher duty class, starch,
currants, sugar, castor oil, spirit varnish
and many other things that poor people
have to use.
There is still another large class OF more
than 200 articles upon which the duties
are shown to range from so to 70 per cent.
This class embraces all kinds of cotton
manufactures and fabrics, refined sugar,
upon which the duty is "A per cent, um-
brellas, parasols, ETC., cutlery, chinaware,
nO1celHlll. dilu OlIlCI
soda. any many other useful articles.
Thus it is seen that within these three
classes of articles, upon which the ad va
loren equivalent of the duties levied ranges
from so to above 200 per. cent, are IN
cluded the bulk of the articles consumed
by our people, and especially the poorer
classes, and in fact the greater portion OF
the article embraced in the entire tariff
schedules. Lower and nominal duties
placed upon a number of iDconsiderable
articles of which in the nature Of things
there are few importatiOns, serve to bring
down the average of duties, which, as al
ready stated, is delusive.
HEAVY BURDEN ON THE PEOPLE.
1t is impossible, of course, in a news
paper article, to go into sufficient detail to
show the exact extent to which the bur
dens of the American people all OF whom
are compelled to consume the taxed arti-
cles. are increased by the large measure
of increased taxation carried by this vic
ious bill with its excessive application OF
the protection principle. 1t has been
demonstrated by Senators who have par
ticipated in the debate, that the increased
cost of carpeting room of ordinary di
mensions will be S14 or upward, and 1t
has been estimated that the cost OF living
under the new schedule of taxation will
be increased on an average of 30 to 4OPer
cent. While the average difference be
tween the rates of duty levied by the Will
son law and the Dingley lar are, as already
stated, as 80 to 81 per cent, yet the du-
ties in the latter being levied upon a diff
ferent and more onerous principle, its IN
crease of the burden of taxation is really
greater than is revealed by this disparity
in figures. Perhaps the most concise and
comprehensive summary of the oppressive
character of the Dingley law is found in
the statement that while it will probably
take from $3.50, 900, 900 to s400, 600,
900 from the pockets of the people who
consume the articles it taxes, it will only
put about S175, 900, 900 of that amount
into the public Treasury. The difference
will 90 into the strong boxes of the nu-
merous trusts that have grown up under
the Republican tariff policy. This is the
-...:.-- =. :, 1 ,,..o ;ool "a 6acf of .ecuch ra