The sea coast echo. [volume] (Bay Saint Louis, Miss.) 1892-current, 1897-08-28
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES Ae-
SuRDlTlEs or THE plNeLEY GILL.


Ever Proposed"-w wni discourage Trussa
and Discourage American Labor--Halses
Some Serious Reflections Upon the nc
Kiniey nnl as n Revenue Producer.
Ex-Postmaster General William L.
Wilson Is credited with tho authorship
OF tho tariff bill now In force. His
hands were tied no that be could not
make the bin nearly as good as he de-
sired to mako ii, and the bill ss finally
passed was not nearly az good as when
II first passed the house. 1t was, how
ever, great Improvement upon the Nc
Kinley bill and Ia a model ls compared
with the Dingley monstrosity. We
quote the following from Mr. Wilson Il
criticism Of the Mckinley and Dingley
bills in a recent number OF tho New
York Herald:
These bills are so nearly identical In
general structure and particular items
excepting as to the sugar schedule, that
IL may bo we'll TO consider the effect Of
the first bill ON the revenue Of the coun-
try. Both bills are vast and voluminous
schemes Of class taxation, the production
Of public revenue being an incident and
entirely subordinate to the purpose Of
taxing all the American people for the
benefit Of small part of the people.
| The protectionist has but one remedy,
which he applies whether the revenue
be redundant or deficient. If times are
prosperous and more money than is
needed pours into tho treasury, he in
rreases taxes by scheme that turns
the larger part Of their avails into pri-
vato pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. II times are depressed and leas
money than Is Iieeded pours into the
treasury, he seizes the pretext Of in
rreasing public revenues by adding
enormously to the amount Of private ex.
action.
The act Of 1890, whate yer its other
effects, did reduce revenue. From a
large s8fpiusit swept us hoadloug to a
deficiency, although Il weighted the
People with heavier taxes hfid although
another law, passed IN July, 1890,
turned into the treasury az part Of the
general assets TO bo used for paying cx-
! ponditures trust fund Of more than
e54, 900, COO which belonged to the ma
tional banks aud had always been held
for the redemption Of their notes.
Even before the Harrison administra-
tion ended We should have been con-
frontcd with II large deficiency but for
the uso Of this trust fund and tho fur
ther fact that Secretary Foster, by a
change OF bookkeeping, added to the
treasury balance $40, 600, GOO of token
and subsidiary coin not before treated
as "a taut'asstJ ''.s.,t- Uit- thcse extrnor! T.!
dinary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 80, 1893, with a sur
plus of only $2,841 ,074 AZ against q
surplus for the fiscal year June 30,
1890, Of over $50, 10000 before the
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
weras touched. And during the fiscal
year ended June 30. 1894, through all
Of which tho Mckinley bill was in force,
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
the amount of 800, 803, ,260, notwith-
standing the fact that tho expenditures
II the government were $l5, 952, GA
less than in the preceding year.
This statement shows how absurd and
groundless is the claim constantly made
by the protectionists that recent deficits
in revenue are due to the substitution
Of the existing tariff for the Mckinley
bilk Nothing Is moro certain than that
If the bill had been in force dtfring the
last three years the annual deficit would
have been immensely swollen, while the
people in season Of depression and
hard times would have staggered under
much heavier burdens Of taxation. Even
in this disastrous period, customs duties
under the existing law have increased
from less than $l82, 900, 900 in 1894,
the last year Of the Mckinley bill, to
even $152, 600, 900 in 1895 and to over
$3.50, 600, 600 in 1896
In the sugar schedule alone the bal
ance In favor Of the existing law Ia
about 500, 600, 900. The customs reve-
nue. reached nearly $40, 600, 900, scarce
ly any Of which would have been re-
ceivable under the Mckinley bill.
That the Dingley bill, present condi-
tions considered, is the most ultra pro-
tective tariff ever proposed to be enact
ed in this country plainly appears from
Chairman Dingley's statement that if
levied on the importations Of the last
fiscal year 1t would have increased the
revenue $112, 900, 000--that is to say, it
would have gathered from an importa-
tion of $775, 724, 264 Of imported mer-
/ chandise the enormous sum of $272,
00O, 600, which is nearly $4,000, 600
more than any customs revenue ever
collected in one year in this country in
the past. And TO say that its rates will
probably check dutiable imports to the
extent Of reducing the estimate to $40,
coo, 900 10 only another way Of saying
that TO that extent such rates are pro-
hibitory.
American consumers are shut III the
home market to be preyed upon by com
binations and trusts without possibilt-
ty of relief from outside competition.
Such combinations, by joining to keep
mp prices and to curtail production,
wage more merciless war against the
employment. the opportunities and the
compensation Of American labor than
any possible competition from abroad
could do.
The falling Off Of importations under
the present law dispels the illusion
that the American laborer is anywhere
deprived of employment by the impor-
tation Of foreign products The crafty
ing increase in our exports of manufae-
lures is equally strong proof that those
laws are helping Us to enter and com
mand new markets, which means not
only larger. employment for our arti-
Sans, but more home consumers for our
farmers.