Sequachee Valley news. (Sequachee [Sequatchie], Tenn.) 1896-1952, 1897-05-13
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
Author of the Present Law Criti-
cises the Dingley Bill
says II is ''the Most Ultra Protective
TariR Ever PrOpOsed"-WIm EN-
courage Trusts and Discourage
American Labor.

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
il first passed the house. IL was, how
ever. a great improvement upon the Nc
Kinley bill and is a model as compared
with the Dingley monstrosity. We
quote the following from MIR. Wilson's
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
il may be we'll to consider the effect of
the first bill on the revenue of the.coun-
try. Both bills are vast and yoluminous
schemes of class taxation, the produc-
ton 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 peo-
pie.
"
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 ayails into pri-
vate pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. If times are depressed and less
money than is needed pours into the
treasury, he seizes the pretcXt of in
creasing public revenues by adding
enormously to the amount of private
eXaction.
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 paying eX-
pendtures a trust fund of more than
$54,0O0,00O, which belonged to the ma
tional banks and had always been held
| for the redemption of their notes.
! Even before the Harrison administra-
! ton ended we should have been con-
fronted with large deficiency but for
! the use of this trust fund and the fur
| Their fact that Secretary Foster, by q
change of bookkeeping, added to the
treasury balance S20,0OO,O0O of token
and subsidiary coin not before treated
! as a treasury asset With these eXtraor-
binary additions. even, we wound up the
fiscal year. June 30 1895, with a.sur-
plus of only $9,341,674 as against a
surplus for the fiscal year June 30,
/ 1890. of over $85.OO0,0O0 before the
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
were touched. And during the fiscal
| year ended June so, 1894, through all
of which the Mckinley bill was in force,
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
the amount of $C0,S03.2GO. notwith-
standing the fact that the expenditures
of the government were $685., GA less
than in the preceding year.
This statement shows how absurd and
groundless is the claim constantly made
by the protectionists that recent def
cts in revenues are due to the substi-
tuition Of the existing tariff for the Nc
J Kinley 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 pc
riod, customs duties under the existing
law have increased from less than Sl32,.
1 100000 in 1894, the last year of the Nc.
kinney bill, to over 1852, 100000 in 1895
and to over $16O,OOO,OOO in 1896.
In the sugar schedule alone the bal
ance in favor of the existing law is
about S55.O0O,0OO. The customs rev
enue reached nearly S4O,OOO,OO0, scarce
ly any of which would have been re-
ceived under the Mckinley bill.
That the Dingley bill, present condi
tions considered, is the most ultra pro
tective tariff ever proposed to b,
enacted 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
l The re-. -es 81 .00O.0OO-thut is to say