The evening tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 189?-190?, 1897-04-30
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
xoeMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES AB-
SuRDlTlES OF THE DiNGLEY BILL.
Says IL Is 'thc Most Ultra Protective Tariff
Ever Proposed"-wnn Encourage Trusts
and Discourage American Labor--Mskes
Some Serious Reflections Upon tho Me-
KtnIey Bill as u Revenue Producer.

Ex-Postmaster General William l..
Wilson is credited with the authorship
of the tariff bill now in force. His
hands were tied SO that he could not
make the bill nearly as good as he de-
sired TO make il, and the bill as finally
passed was not nearly rs good as when
It first passed the house. It was, how
ever, a great improvement ppon the NC
Kinley bill and is model as compared
with the Dingley monstrosity. We
quote the following from Mr.. Wilson's
criticism of the Mckinley and Din9ley
bills in a recent number OF the New
York Herald:
These bills are so nearly identical in
general structure and particular items,
excepting as to the sugar schedule, that
it NAV be we'll 10 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 a 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 the treasury, he in
ereases taxes by scheme that turns
the larger part Of their avails into pri-
vate pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. IL times are depressed and less
money than Is needed pours into the
treasury, he seiZas tho pretext OF in
creasing public revenues by adding
enormously to the amount of private ex-
action.
. The act Of 1890, whatever its other
effects, did reduce revenue. From
large surplus it swept us headlong to
deficiency, although it weighted the
people with heavier taxes and although
another law, passed in July, 1890,
turned into the treasury as part OF the
general assets to be used for paying ex-
penditures trust fund of more than
f54 900, 600 which belonged to the ma.
tional banks and had always been held
for the redemption of their notes.
Even before the Harrison administra
ton ended we should have been con-
fronted with large deficiency but for
the use of this trust fund and the fur
ther fact that Secretary Foster, by a
change of bookkeeping, added to the
treasury balance $40, 000,0 600 of token
and subsidiary coin not before treated
as a treasury asset. With these extraor-
dinary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 80, 1898, with sur
plus of only $2, ,674 as against a
surplus for the fiscal year June 30,
1890, of over $50, 100000 before the
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
were touched. And during the fiscal
year ended June 30, 1894, through all
of which the Mckinley bill was i'll force,
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
the amount of 500, 803, EGO, notwith-
standing the fact that the expenditures
of the government were $l5, 952, GA
less than in the preceding year.
!. This statement shows how absurd and
.groundlcss is the claim constantly made
by the protectionists that recent deficits
in revenue aro due to the substitution
of tho existing tariff for the Mckinley
bill, Nothing is more certain than that
if the bill had been in force during the
,.s. .nMe yc.srs ycsrs the annual deficit would
have been immensely swollen, while tho
pepplo in n 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 $4,000, 900 in 1894,
the last year Of the Mckinley bill, to
even $l52, 600, 600 in 1895 and to over
$3.50, 900, 900 in 1895.
In the sugar schedule alone the bal
anoe In favor Of the existing law is
about SOS, 900, 900. The customs reve-
nue. reached nearly $40, 900, 600, scarce
.ly any Of which would have been re-
oeivable 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 II
levied ON the importations OF the last
fiscal year it would have increased the
revenue $l12, 600, 000-that is TO say, II
would have gathered from an importa.
tion Of e776,724, 264 Of imported mer.
chandise the enormous sum Of &272,-
100000, which is nearly 500, 900, 00(
more than any customs revenue eve,
collected in one year in this country ir
the past. And to say that it's rates will
probably check dutiable imports to tht
extent Of reducing the estimate to $40,
100000 Is only another way Of sayint
that to that extent such rates are pro
hibitory.
American consumers are shut in th'
home market TO be preyed upon by com
binations and trusts without possibili
iy of relief from outside competition
such combinations, by joining to keel
mp prices and TO curtail production
wage more merciless war against tn
employment, the opportunities and tn
compensation Of American labor tha
any possible competition from abroa
could do.
The falling of Of importations undt
the present law dispels tho illusio