New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-07-13
THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE.

While the conference committee Is IN session,
and, according to all accounts Is making re-
markably good progress. it Is not to be sup
posed that the leaders Of the House or the SEN
ate will talk loosely to reporters or others. 1t
may therefore be inferred that Senator Adrich
did not exactly say, as some journals report,
that he and the Senate ccnferrees would stand
stiffly for duties low enough to yield an ade-
Quate revenue. The thought Is one which Dem
ocratic journals generally have been striving TO
impress upon the public mind-namely, that the
Senate tariff is preferable because higher rates
of duty would yield less revenue. 1t Is not to
be readily believed that an opinion so far I'M
lust to the Republicans Of the House would be
expressed by the Senator from Rhode Island
for he Is we'll aware that a large proportion of
the changes made by the Senate were either
corrections of phraseoogy not altering the rates
of duty intended by the House, else were so
trifing in amount that, however meritOrious
they may have been on other accounts. they
could not be expected appreciably to affect the
revenue.
The changes which are of Importance as to
rates. it is also we'll known, have by no means
been uniformly such as to promote larger reve-
nue.. On the motion Of Senator Jones, of Ne
vada, some changes were made which were ex-
pressly intended not to encourage larger i'm
portatiOns The modification Of duties as to
some Of the higher grades Of metal and cotton
goods was avOwedly designed to afford ade-
Quate protection for advances Of home industry
into fields not yet conquered and the change In
duties on woollens, accompanied by lower du-
ties on wool, was not recommended to the pub
lie on the ground that 1t would encourage larger
mportations and subject the home manufacture
to greater competition than the rates Of the
House bill. If that had been the avowed OBJ
jcct, these changes would hardly have received
the support of many Senators who did support
them
AS to articles of the luxury class, such as
liquors, tobacco, and the more costly and fash
iOnable textile goods gloves and adOrnments, it
is welrecognlzed principle that higher duties,
within ordinary limits, do not operate to reduce
importatiOns, but only to increase revenue 1t Is
on this ground that the reduction Of duties by
the Senate on brandy and leaf tobacco below
the rates Of the Mckinley act. under which i'm
ports were large, has been criticised as need
less sacrifice OF revenue. 1t only lessons the
sum which the wealthy and luxury-loving class
pay for pleasures often considered fashionable
and enjoyable much in proportion TO their cost.
If the conference committee seeks larger reve-
nue., as it undoubtedly will, 1t can secure not n
little by restoring the higher House rates on
certain articles Of this class. Nor can the Sen
ate Finance Committee, which reported against
putting bags and burlaps and cotton ties on the
free list, defend the removal Of duties on these
articles as a step to increase revenue 1t merely
gave away sundry millions Of revepue, much
to the satisfaction OF Democrats whowould like
to see the Republican party also enact tariff
FOR deficit
There are hundreds Of the Senate amendments
which the House will doubtless be disposed to
accept as improvements, since many Of them
would presumably have been made In that body
had there been more time for detailed exam
nation. As to many others which do not ap-
pear to have practical Importance except as
justfylng the general claim that the Senate
rates average lower than those Of the House no
prolonged controversy seems necessary, since
most Of them will scarcely affect the revenue
appreclaby Dol any industry. The main points
Of difference, however stand on n different foot
Ing, and two purposes should control the de-
cison, without regard TO any pride OF feeling
or rivalry between the two houses-pamely, to
insure adequate revenue. and to insure full pro-