The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-09-09
The One Hundred Dollar Limit.

Mr.. D~INGLEY's newspaper in Maine, the
Letriston Erening Journal. discusses the
tourists personal effects clause in an arti-
Gle apparently written by the responsible
author of the new tariff.
1t is evident that some apprehension ex-
lists on the part of the makers of the tariff
as to popular judgment concerning the one
hundred dollar limit, both as a revenue
producer and as a protective agent. 1t
was an experiment, a new experiment, and
perhaps the most doubtful experiment in
the act of 1897.
Mr.. DINGLEY, or rather Mr.. DINGLEY's
newspaper, remarks that this provision of
the tariff yielded "nearly $4,000 revenue
in August" and that 1.-The Assistant Sec
rotary of the Treasury says that unques.
tionably it indirectly produces much more
revenue by diminishing the amount of mer-
chandise brought in by tourists, and thereby
making so much more demand for the same
merchandise from merchants who pay the
regular duty"
This seems like an assertion of the pro-
tective intent of the clause, and yet the
Le'ciston Journal pretends to say that
there is no question of protection in
| NoiNCus ~ . MI olo u Cludl IlBuIS
and equal obligations" This statement Is
thus explained:
at will be remembered that the Treasury agents
reported that $40. 900. 900 OF merchandise. comprised
largely OF silks. gloves, luxurles. and clothing. were
brought in free OF duty by tourists last year. under
the free provision OF the old tariff. In many cases
m.lliners and other importers made a business OF go.
ing to Europe several times q year to bring back
stocks free OF duty "a personal effects, while tho mass
of people who cannot anord to go to Europe
paid the proper duty on all they bought.
The free-trade papers have been criticising the
new tarln for cutting Off this discrimination
in favor OF the wealthy. on the ground that It dis,
turbed tourists to be obliged to discloss what mer-
chandiss they have in their trunks. VIII some OF
these critics tell us why an AsroR should be Dor.
mittot to bring In sixty trunks filled with goods free
OF duty. when people who can't go to Europe are
obliged to pay duty on similar goods which they con.
sume2"
Whatever may be the reply of free-trade
critics to Mr.. DINGLEY's questions about
the sixty trunks of the supposititious Mr..
Aston, we beg leave to call the attention OF
that sincere and earnest advocate Of pro-
lection to another aspect of the matter.
If the personal effects clause was or.
dained simply on the principle of equal
rights and equal obligations. that Is, simply
to prevent citizens who go to Europe from
buying clothing and knick- knacks a little
more cheaply than those citizens can buy
e who stay ut home, why was there any
exemption from duty on such articles
Why was there ixed at 800 a limit inside
of which the citizen who can go to
Europe is permitted to enjoy this advantage
over his fellow citizen who stays at home
A considerable number of returning trav.
ellers, perhaps even a majority of all Amer.
leans who go abroad for recreation, do not
bring back in purchases as much as one
hundred dollars worth of dutiable mer
chandise. Why should they be permitted
to escape duty even on less than ono hun,
dred dollars worth, If tho principle OF
equal rights and equal obligations is tc
apply all arounda
The man h brings homo clothing Of
foreign make to tho value of $50, unde,
Mr.. DIEGLEY's exemption clause, possesses
what is in principle precisely the same un,
equal right, and what is relatively the
same ~pecuniary advantage over the Ameri
can who would buy that mo of foreign,
made clothing if he could go abroad, as the
Hypothetical Aston. with the sixty trunks