The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1897-03-27
Proposed Tariff Duties Certain
to Increase Taxation.
SHOWN BIZ THE DEBATE TODAY
Democrats Brought Out the Fact
That Percentages Are Higher In
the DiDgley Bill Than in the Nc
kinley Act-Illustration of the
Doctrine of Paternalism.

lnt DeiuoCidls iii the ldIlll ueBdtt III
the House this morning brought out with
emphasis the fact that IL he proposed duties
will constitute a great increase of the bur-
dens of taxation upon the people, and
showed that the percentages of duties are
higher even than in the Mckinley bill.
The Republicans explanation of the latter
fact was that prices are lower now and
whenever the specific duty proposed is
exactly the same as in the Mckinley bill
the percentage of taxation is higher. The
increase in the total of taxes levied was
defended on the ground that the foreigner
pays the duty.
~Ir the wrath of the American people
for the Mckinley BILL exclaimed Mr..
Richardson, 'wassuch a S we saw, W whatwill
they do with this same old party? Ill say
TO you, to use the street boy phrase, what
tney'n co TO you win be a plenty" lie
had just shown that except in two
schedules the duties imposed by the Ding
ley bill are higher than the duties imposed
by the Mckinley bill
The remarks of the gentleman from
Tennessee" said Mr.. Dingley, in reply,
'fOrm another illustration OF a familiar
method OF juggling with figures" He
then went on to explain that the proposed
duties were lower than in the Mckinley y
bill, except in sugar, silks, and tobacco.
He said the difference I'm his statement and
Mr.. Richardson's S depended upon the TACT
that the duties in The Dingley hill and the
Mckinley bill were mainly specific, while
the duties in the Wilson bill were mainly
ad ValoreDl and the comparison was made
in ad vaiorem percentages.
But L make the comparison between the
specific duties in the Mckinley law and
the specific duties of the present bill,
leaving the Wilson bill out OF the ques-
ton"
AIR Dmgley then explained that Prices
were much lower in 1896 than in 1S90-93,
When the Mckinley duties were in effect
or course. with the same specific Guty,
the percentage Of taxation would be
higher when prices were lower. He in
sisted that the comparisons Of percent
ages were necessarily misleading. He
also said the lower prices now prevail
ing, in fact, were further lowered by IN
dervaluations under the ad valorem sys-
TEN.
Mr. Dockery declared that it made no
differ ence what the percentages appeared
TO snow, the 81 eat fact stood out plain to
everybody, and acknowledged in the com
mittee'S report, that the bill proposed TO
exact the stupendous increase Of S113,-
100000 from the people. 1t seemed TO
him to make little difference whether the
percentage was higher or lower.
This bill" he declared, lis an Illus
tration OF the pernicious doctrine OF pa
ternalism. carried out always 10y the Re-
publican party. Under this doctrine the
specially favored interests come TO Con-
gress when a tariff tin is to toe framed,
each seeking an advantage over the other,
ana all at the expense OF the whole Coun-
try.
In this bill, as in the Mckinley bill,
the item of hides has been put on the free
list Why Because the New England man
ufacturers have come here and demandeflit il
in order that they might have cheap ma
tcrial TO make shoes. But hides and wool
hold exactly the same position with ref
erence to a tariff bill. l hold to the good
old Democratic doctrine that both oughttC
be on the free list in order that shoes may
be cheap 10 our people, and that our manu-
faeturers may be able 10 go into the mar
kets of the world and sell.
Mr. Walker, of Massachusetts,, declared
that a protective tariff was not only q
protection to the manufacturer, but also
protectedthe American woTkingman against
the product of foreign labor. He concluded
by saying that the day would come when
an organization of the manufacturers
would make prices lower TO the consumer
and give the workingman an increased
wage.
MIR. Richardson, of Tennessee, asserted
that the present proposed tariff bill in
creased greatly the tax on the American
people. He charged that the duty on
fifteen different articles in the chemical
schedule was higher even Than the last
Mckinley bill had made it.
The chairman of the Ways and Means
Committee delivered a lengthy speech this
morning because he did not wantit to go
forth TO the country that he and his
party had really increased the taxation
of the people, asserted Mr.. Richard
son. But 1 make the statement here re-
garding the chemical schedule and intend
TO make il on every other schedule where
the increase occurs. See if you can CON
vince the American people that it is jug
Cling figures.
Mr. Grow fortified brief address by Civ
ing figures on the price OF Tin plate under the
Mckinley protective tariff for the pur-
pose 0f showing that the foreigner paid
the tax, not the people Of the United
States Replying TO question propounded
by Mr. Richardson, Mr.. Grow admitted that
tin plate had increased in price under the
Mckinley bill
when you put the duty on tin plate"
asked Mr.. Richardson, lis it not true
that every merchant in the country put
up the price on all tinware, and is il rot
true that the American people paid that
increased price,"
Mr.. Grow admitted that the price on tin
plate had gone up 20 cents per box, but
there was duty of S1.29 on that box,
ne declared, which had to be paid by
the foreigner.
A little further in the progress of Mr.
Grows remarks Missouri member again
called attention to the increased price ON
tnware. The gentleman has acknowl-
edged that the price was increased 20
cents per hox and the consumer paid that
amount additional"
Mr. Grou-[a- I did NOT say ANYTHING