The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-11-24
DEFENSE OF TIE DINGLEY
LAW.


One of the most interesting and in
structive subjects that the history OF
American politics offers to the student
Of our institutions is the influence of
parties upon each other. Were such
a study undertaken it would be found
that the great historic parties have
been much modified in their theories
by their conflicts with each other, as
mems views and theories are modified
by contact with their fellow men. 1t
would be found that party exigencies
had caused parties either to greatly
modify or abandon their historic posi-
tons on many questions. Some day
some student of our institutions will
make a thorough and exhaustive study
Of American political parties from the
point Of view above outlined and it
will be most instructive
1t is the influence of political parties
upon each other that has caused the
Boston Journal to make a defense of
the Dingley law through its free list.
It wants to know how many persons
who have listened to foundations OF
the Chinese wall that a protective
tariff sets up about our borders dream
that half of our imports from foreign
countries come in free. 1t says that
such is the fact, and takes October as
an example. 1t says that during that
month the imports of merchandise were
valued at $40, 969, S13, of which $24, 334 800
was composed of articles that are on
the free list.
fThe Journal then goes on to say that
this fact is a reminder that the free
list is virtually Republican invention;
that originally in the days of the faith
ers almost everything that came into
our harbors was taxed, while in the
tariffs of Washington and Adams, Of
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jack
son, the free list was a very abbreVi-
ated one. The Journal might have adj
ded that the dutiable list was also an
abbreviated one, while the first tariff
law, that of July 4, 1888, would not fill
four pages of the official copy of the
Dingley law as issued by the treasury
department, and that the highest ad
valorem duty provided for in that law
was Is per cent and was on coaches,
chariots or other four-wheel carriages,
and on chaises. solos. or other two
wheel carriages, or parts thereof.
The Journal closes as follows:
In 1850 the free list reached its fullest
development in the Mckinley tariff, I'M
der which IS per cent OF ali our imports
were for three years non-dutiable.
! Then the Democrats came into power,
and under pretence of removing the
shackles from commerce. and giving
freer trade to the American people, F"
they enacted q tariff which actually
reduced the free imports to 80 per cent.
A distinguished public man of Mas
sachuSetts has been quoted as having
said, twenty years ago. that the free
list is the true hope of the revenue re-
/ former" 1t is Republican laws chiefly
which have made the free list what it
! is today-and all this has been done
without surrendering an inch of proper
and necessary protection.
No one is making any complaints
against the free list, at least no Demo-
crat is. The one thing in the Journal
article that merits special notice is the
fact that it is a defense of the Ding
; ley law through its free list. 1t is
tantamount to an acknowledgment
that it is indefensible from its protect
i've side: the Journal would not con-
cede this. yet such is the case. But
what "a commentary it is on the Ding
ley law and its excessive duties for u
Republican paper to be compelled to
resort to free trade arguments to de-
fend it. 1t shows how Democratic
tariff doctrines are modifying Repub-
lican tariff doctrines.