The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1897-08-07
THE TRUSTS SHOWN TO BE THE
LEGITIMATE AND FAVORITE
OFFSPRING OF THE PROTEC-
TIVE SYSTEM.
Published by authority of the Maryland Demo
cratic Editors Association

! Published by authority of the Maryland Demo
cratic Editors Association.
In the last article it was shown that the
great question as to whether protection
to certain American interests should be
the object or merely the incident of tariff
taxation, which had been fought out be
tween the old Wing party and the Dem
ocratic party in the antebellum period of
our history with the result of il general
acceptance of the doctrine of ''tariff for
revenue with incidental protection by
both political parties and the elimination of
the question from political controversy, had
been revived again after the civil war by
the manufacturing interests of this country,
who fattened by the large benefits result
ing from the war tariffs, had become Il
powerful factor in American politics 1t
was shown that the Republican party,
yielding to the greed Of these special in
terests, has since the war again asserted
the doctrine abandoned by the Wings
after the American manufacturing industry
had passed the ''infantile'' period of
making protection the object of tariff taxa
ton and 50 adjusting the schedules as to
''check imports That this doctrine
first fully asserted in the platform of 1888,
had been clearly exemplifed in the Nc
Kinley law of 1890, which, though it
largely increased the rates of the law of
1888, actually diminished the revenues re-
sulting to the Government. 1t was also
stated that the Dingley bill, just enacted
into law, is Il distinct reassertion of the ex-
traordinary principles upon which the Me
Kinlev law rested with an intensified ap-
plication to many articles which enter into
general consumption in this country 1t
is proposed, in this article, to point out
some of the excesses and enOrmities of the
Dingley law
ENORMITY OF THE DINGLEY LAW.
The Mckinley law, the vicious principle
upon which it rested and its onerous burden
upon the masses of the people were so
thoroughly discussed and exposed in the
campaign of education which interviewed
between the date of its enactment in 1890
and the National election of 1892, when
it was so emphatically condemned by the
American people, that it ought to be suff
cient to ensure the same emphatic, popular
condemnation of the Dingley law, to show
that it is a substantial re-enactment of the
burdensome provisions Of the law Of 1890.
But it is really much worse. While it
measures quite up to the standard of the
Mckinley law in all its provisions and does
not surrender any of the exactions of that
oppressive measure, the Dingley law goes
quite beyond it in many of its details. 1t
is shown by the figures of the Treasury ex
perts that the average ad valorem rate of
the Dingley law is 81 per cent, as against
40 per cent. in the Mckinley law and 80
per cent. in the Wilson law. The Repub
lican sponsors for the Dingley law do not
controvert these figures, but they maintain
that the Dingley duty on raw sugar (while
under the Mckinley law all sugar except
the refined article was free) partly explains
the higher ad valorem average of the Ding
lev law The fact that the Wilson law,
like all other Democratic tariff laws, i'm
posed fair revenue duty upon raw sugar,
while cutting down the Republican differ
ential on refined, might also be invoked to
show that the real excess of average of the
Mckinley law over the Wilson law is not
disclosed by the above figures. There are
other devices, such as small nominal duties
imposed for effect on certain agricultural
products, by which the average rate of
duty is apparently lowered.