The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-15
THE NEW TARIFF BILL.

When the provisions of the Dingley tariff
BILL which will doubtless be presented in
the House to-day or tomorrow, ex-
planned there will not be much vehement
objection to it, While its provisions are
essentially protective, it will be found that
IL provides for a substantial increase Of
the revenue based upon the quantities i'm
ported rather than their fictitious values as
appraised by foreign manufacturers. 1t
will also be found that IN order TO insure
sufficient revenue the free list has been cur
tailed to some extent with a view TO reve-
nue.. Probably the schedule which will
cause the most criticism is that which re-
stores wool to the dutiabe list. 1t is said
that the duties on wool, as fixed in the
Dingley bill. are nearly the same as those
in the Mckinley law. Some of the ultra
representatives of the wool-growers desired
even higher duty. but that is out of the
question. Ii was said of the Mckinley law
by its opponents that 1t was the most COM
plete measure for protection ever known.
still Ii produced larger revenues under the
prosperous times which followed its enact
ment than has the present tariff. or even
those which preceded it when allowance is
made for the loss of fifty or sixty millions
year which were lost by putting raw
sugars on the free list. In the Dingley bill
specific duties have been imposed upon raw
sugars and small additional duty re-
fined
Beyond the Sugar Trust and foreign i'm
porters the present tariff has no champions.
Very naturally it suits the sugar refining
monopoly because the sugar schedule was
made for il by its managers. According
to the testimony of the president of the
Sugar Trust, it makes from IS 10 20 per
| cent. a year. The Dingley schedule will
make this large profit impossible. The do
nestle importers have declared against the
German law because fits ad valorem duties
give the foreign manufacturer and exporter
a great advantage in making undervalua-
tons. All those who believe that the tariff
and revenue laws should afford sufficient
duties to create revenue equal to the ex-
penditures of the government cannot
longer defend the present law because they
| must be satisfied that there will be a
| monthly deficit as long as it is in existence.
One need not be a very wide close OBJ
| server to have noted that there is less hos
| tility to protective tariff than there was
| few years ago. True, the doctrnaires
| who ignore experience and conditions, and
| few editors who accepted the textbooks
OF free trade professors as inspired truth
will always rail against the protective pol
| icy. They, however, no longer count for
much. but when a paper like the Brooklyn
Eagle, always an advocate of revenue tar
| ifs. expresses a willingness to have the
| Republican tariff law promised in the st.
| Louis platform enacted. il may be assumed
| that a great change of sentiment has taken
| place since 1892 That the significance of
| the words of the Eagle may be understood,
| the following extract from that paper is
| quoted:
1t is our own belief that the 1telligence
of Democracy is relinquishing much of its
old-time animosity toward the protectionist
school, and that il will continue to relin-
QuiSh il TO the extent that the degradation
and debasement of labor conditions abroad
are the more understood and appreciated.
| There is reason 10 believe that the fore
| going expresses the sentiment of very
large number of business men who adhere
| to the Democratic party. The experience of
| the past four years in the attempt to secure
| Il revenue tariff without protection has
wrought a very general change of opinion
| regarding the tariff. These men desire the
passage of the Dingley tariff bill.