New-York tribune., 1897-08-02
r,rCIpEC TILT MISLElO.

- ,,,,h conseuuancp that the new tari1t
should not be prejudlccd AT the start III puonO
estimation through erroneous statements Vi "'
nature. Two such statements nave just "P
noored. one from the Bureau OF S'a'isucs an"
The other from the clerk engaged Ill 'ariii cum
mutations for years past, which are all ."o
moro likely to deceive and 10 90 harh'' w
eouse. as respects the mere figures gwen po'n
may be strictly accurate. Yet bo'h prompt
misleading conclusions doubtless without HI
,ep,icn on the part of the Bureau or Mr. Evans
and the figures are in form to be extensively
ouotcd as proving something which they 90
not prove
The first is a table showing the estimated
"loss of revenue to the Government on account
.of increased imports IN the months OF March-
"June. inclusive, in anticipation OF lhc'easeu
'duties." But it must surely he admitted tha'
,hp Government has not lost anything ID! il-
norris which would never have been maze "'
all if not made prior 10 the enforcement ..
new and higher duties. II has. III fac'' @aliieu
whatever amount the low duties with aphor-
mo1 ,mnorts NAV exceed the higher duties
which would have been paid on much siliaiier
,,nuor,s uuder the new tariff. But the tabl"
include SlI14S.7S6 on frst-cass and StG'9.9N5
on second and third class wool imported Tree
of duty OF which il Is safe to say tha' II
email ououtity would have been imported in
addition TO the heavy stocks already III the
corn,rv prior 10 last March. if the new duties
had taken effect March /. 1t certainly cannot
be assumed that any such quantity oi WOOL
N,ould have been imported at duties Of II and
10 cprts per pound and still less can it he as
su,ncd that secured wool. bearing duty of 81
cents per round. would have been heavily I'M
ported instead Of uuwashed at II cents if both
had not been free.
Similar objections attach in less degree TO
other items in the comparison. 1t is not in the
leost proi,allc that woollen goods at duties
averaging nearly 100 per cent would have been
imported as largely rs such goods have been
at duties averaging ~ per cent. hut if not the
Government has not lost the difference or 30
ppr cent in duties on such quantity OF goods.
or s5.S91I2 bu: only TIE difference on such
goods as would have been imported nOtwith-
standing higher duties. had there been no
such anticipatory imports. With these TWO
items more than twO-thirds of the estimated
loss is placed in doubt. to say the least. ana IL
will probably be agreed thar much the greater
part of il Is not IN true sense loss, because
II would never have been received. 1t iS or
interest nevertheless 10 know that the differ
encp between new ana Ol! dutleS. fecKOned on
the quantities actually imported within four
months In excess Of quantities imported the
previous year was S110S90 on burlaps, SI22,-
1871 on tobacco for wrappers, StiS9,4sl on hides,
S49c,l1S on opium, S470502 on cutlery, sl5o,-
$50 on floor mattings $685. on gloves, S307.-
1Ss on boards and s293.S 800 on silk goods.
Comparison Of these amounts with the value OF
similar domestic products entering into con
sumption will give some idea Of the extent TO
which the home market has been invaded.
considerable part Of these sums, with 5000
GA on raw sugar. must indeed represent actual
loss caused by failure Of the Senate to act with
promptness.
The other statement gives by schedules the
ratio Of new and of Wilson duties, calculated
on the imports OF the fiscal year 1896 This is
obviously misleading because the new tariff
was not intended to encourage nor to permit
the excessive importation of many goods whicl
have been encouraged by the Democratic tariff
because higher duties have been placed OF
many such goods, the imports Of them will
nrobably decrease materially. so that the pro
nort,on OF goods bearing such rates 10 the tota
importat,ons will not be anywhere near th'
proportion reported. In consequence. the aver
age rate on actual imports will in nearly ever!
schedule be found materially lower than th'
estimate based on the false assumption tha
the imports Of 1896 will be repeated under th'
new duties In all probability IT will be fount
that the average Of duties on goods actual!
imported under the new tariff will be mate