The McCook tribune., 1897-02-26
REVENUE DWINDLING
THE FREE TRADE TARIFF CON-
TINUES TO REDUCE.
The Deficit for 1895 Was Over $780,
100000 Comparison of the Wilson
Law Revenues with These of the Me-
Kinlcy Law.

That the Wilson free trade tariff has
proven a more complete failure in its
second year than in its first is shown
by figures obtained here from the gov
ernment reports for the year 1896 and
comparison with those Of 1895. The
official statement of the treasury re-
ceipts for the year 1896 issued by the
government on JAN showed the re-
ceipts of December to be S25, ,S57 ,11424,
and the total receipts of the year 1896
only $3l4, 4,5S5,06S.92. This is $2,462,6
less than the receipts of the year 1895,
and less than any year, for a quarter
of century with the single exception
of the year in which the Wilson law
was adopted. The claim of the friends
OF the Wilson law, except those who
abandoned it to it's fate months ago,
has been that it would, If given time to
adjust itself, produce sufficient revenue
TO meet running expenses. But its sec
ond calendar year is worse than its
first. since, as shown above, it produced
less in 1895 than it did in 1895. In
stead OF doing better after adjusting
itself to business conditions" it has
done worse. The deficit for the year
1896 is $40, ,249, ,325, while that for 1895
was but $34,094,432 The total re-
ccipts il the twenty-eight months since
the law went into effect have fallen
$i29.954. .456.57 below the expenditures,
or an average deficit of over four mil
lions O. dollars per month for the en-
tire time. For the year 1895 it was
less than three millions per month, but
for the year 1896 it was over four mil
lions per month, thus showing that the
promise that the law, like cheese, would
improve with age, has not been real
lied. II is not surprising that. at last
Secretary Carlisle has grown tired OF
predicting better things for it, and that
he admitted in his last report that it
would not produce revenue enough to
meet running expenses.
1t is interesting in this connection to
compare tie receipts of the Wilson law
in the twenty-eight months of it's his
tory with the corresponding history of
the Mckinley law. Secretary Carlisle
argued il his last report that protec-
tive tariff could no longer be relied up
on to produce revenue. Either he must
have failed to compare the workings
of the low tariff law which his party
enacted with those of the Mckinley
law. or he supposed that other people
would Tot do so. The Wilson low tariff
law has produced S714,670,76175 of
revenue in twenty-eight months of ope-
ration. The Mckinley law, thorough
ly protective measure. produced sS42,-
931 .226.30 in the first twenty-eight
months CT its existence. This shows
that the Mckinley protective tariff
produced IN its first twenty-eight
months SIS, ,266, ,46455 more than did
the Wilson low tariff law in its first
twenty-eight months. Mr.. Carlisle also
attempted to place the blame for the
deficit under the Wilson tariff upon
congress because of it's large appropri-
ations. Had he taken the trouble to
CI1C vi lIt III wv
ty-eight months of the Mckinley law
with the expenditures of the first twen-
ty-eight months under the Wilson law
he would have seen that his argument
would not stand the test of facts. The
expenditures during the twenty-eight
months in which the Wilson law has
been in operation amount to $685. $685.
217.S2. The receipts during the first
tWenty-eight months OF the Mckinley
tariff law were SS42,937 ,226.3O Thus.
had Nir. Carlisle had the Mckinley
protective tariff law receipts during the
time in which he complains of a de-
ficit he might have not only had suf-
ficient to meet the excessive eXpendi-
lures OF which he complains, but
snug surplus besides. The much-be-
rated Mckinley protective tariff law in
its frs, twenty-eight months produced
more than enough to have met all the
that have been made in
the twenty-eight months, during
which the Wilson law has beenETAity
which the Wilson low tariff law
has been pillng up deficit of
S1l9.954,A55 and would have left
surplus of nearly seven million dol
lars besides. The attempt to show that
the deficit is due to extravagant appro-
priations or expenditures is not justi-
fed by the facts, since it is found that
the expenditures during the first twen-
ty-eight months of the Mckinley law
were about the same as those in the
first twenty Eight months of the Will
son law. yet there was then surplus
of over ten million dollars. while there
is deficit OF nearly s120,000,O1O under
the Wilson law.
Wool Growers and Manufacturers.