Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1897-05-18
WILSON VS. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES AB-
 SURDlTlES OF THE DINGLEY BILL.

and Discourage American LabOr-Mal1es
 Some Serious Reflections Upon the Mc-
 Kinley Bill ss Revenue Producer.
 x-Pcstmaster General William L. Wilson is credited with the authorship
 of the tariff bill HOW in force. His
 hands were tied so that he could not make the bill nearly as good as he de- sired to make it, and the bill as finally passed was not nearly as good as when it first passed the house. It was, how ever, great improvement upon the Me Kinley bill and is model as compared with the Dingley monstrosity. We quote the following from MT. Wilson $ criticism of the Mckinley and Dingley 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 may be we'll to consider the effect of the first bill on the revenue of the coun- try. Both bills arc 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 the treasury, he in- creases taxes by scheme that turns the larger part of their avails into pri- yate pockets, and this reduces public revenue. If times are depressed and less money than is needed pours into the treasury, he seiZas the pretext of in- oreasing public revenues by adding enormously to the amount of private ex- action.
 The act of 1890, whatever it's other effects, did reduce revenue From a large surplus it swept Us headlong to a deficiency, although it weighted the people with heavier taxes and although another law, passed ill July, 1890, turned into the treasury as part of the general assets to be used for paying ex- penditures trust fund of more than S54, ,000, GOO which belonged to the na- 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 $20, ,000, 900 of token and subsidiary coin not before treated IS treasury asset. With these extraor- dinary additions, even, we wound up the fiscal year June 30, 1893, with a sur plus of only $2,341, ,674 as against surplus for the fiscal year June 30, 1890, of over $85, 5,000,0 ,000 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 in force. expenditures exceeded the revenues to the amount of $69, sos, 260, notwith- standing the fact that the expenditures of the government were $15, 952, STA less than in the preceding year.
 This statement shows how absurd and groundless is the claim constantly made by the protectionists that recent deficits ill revenue are due to the substitution of the existing tariff for the Mckinley bill. Nothing is more certain than that if the bill had been in force during the last three years the annual deficit would have been immensely swollen, while the people in q 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 $l32, GOO, 900 in 1894, the last year of the Mckinley bill, to even $152, 900, 900 in 1895 and 10 over $160, 900, 900 in 1896.
 In the sugar schedule alone the bal anee ill favor of the existing law is about $55, GOO. 600. The customs reve- nue reached nearly $40, 900, 900, scarce ly any of which would have been re- under the Mckinley bill.
 That the Dingley bill, present condi- tions considered, is tEe most ultra pro tectiye tariff ever proposed to be enact ed ill this country plainly appears from Chairman Dingley's statement that if levied on the importations of the last fiscal year it would have increased the revenue S112, 900, o0o-that is to say, it would have gathered from an importa- tion of S775, TEA, 264 of imported mer- ehandise tho enormous sum of $272,- 000, 900, which is nearly $50, ,000, 900 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 S70, GOO, 900 is only another way of saying that to that extent such rates are pro- hibitory.
 American consumers are shut in the home market to te preyed upon by com binations and trusts without possibili- ty of relief from outside competition. Such combinations. by joining to keep up prices and to curtail production, uaoa mora ,narci lf ss war apainst tho