The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1897-04-03
THE DiNGLEY TARIFF BILL
Al 4. Law would Stimulate Trade and
Industries

4
Industries
Mr.. Dingley. chairman of the ways
and means committee. in a digest Of the
proposed tariff law, ably ard in succint
manner sets forth It's provisions and
presents the expectations Of its trainers
as 10 the manner of its operations II
enacted iuto law.
II viii be perceived that the repub-
/ lean menb ers of the committee in
framing The bill have endeayored when
/ ever practical 20 make duties specific.
or a. least partly specific. whenever II
could be done. This will prevent much
of the frauds from undervaluations
/ which have deprived the government
OF large amount of revenue and AZ
the same time give the desired protec-
I ton 20 our own industries.
4 special effort has been made 10
stimulate the agricultural industries of
the land. and with that in view the
duties OF the act of 1890 have been fully
restored as rule and in few instances
increased.
The main purpose of the bill is 20
.
denied by the opponents of the pro-
tective principle. Thus for example.
the New York Herald is found declar-
ing that the bill is "a protection scheme
as pure and simple as was the Mckinley
law" This NAV be taken as . sample
Of the narrow criticism of those who
cling 20 the free trade theory. II is in
disputable-aad no one OF the Herald
school Of economics has erdeavored 20
disproye the statement-that month
for month during the stages Of their
respective existence the Mckinley law
produced more revenue than the Will
son-Gorman law. Laws, like men. must
&c judged BIZ their action. and BY this
STANDARD i is proved that the McKin-
ley Law was not only law for rev
enue. but for protection rs well. And
it Is confidently expected that the Ding
ley law viii also prove 70 he a protect
i've measure as wei as 4 medium for
providing sufficient revenue for the re-
criremeats Of the government.
After making due allowance for pos
sible changes in commerce. Mr.. Dinglev
thinks fair estimate of the revenue
that viii be obtained under the first
years operation OF the law will be at
least $7OCOO.ppQ. This figure NAV be
somewhat exceeded. Next year he IS
quite confident the law will WELD $780,
n0o,gVo. II these expectations are real
lied the question Will CT once be set.
tied whether this is a law for revenue
CT simply a protective measure.
Nov, as 70 the possibility Of prompt
enactment Of the bill. On this point
Mr., Di2gley says that any delay beyond
the Isl Of May in placing the bill on the
statute books would result IN latce loss
Of revenue. The necessity. then. OF its
prompt passage is obvious. ana II view
81 Mr.. Ding.ey's statement possibly the
which was expected in the
senate Will fade away. Senator Mills. of (
Texas, expressed the opinion that The
bill would not encounter this oppoSi-
ton. He said: 1T is The intention Of
he democratic senator's 20 point ont
the eTils Of the measure. and some
org Speeches on this line may be eN-
pccted. But YOU may depend that The /
democrats will not throw any obstacle {
IN the way Of the final passage Of TIE |
bill. The higher the duty imposed on I
goods, the less revenue collected from
them. This will be found TO be the case (
when the pending measure is in lawful I
operation. More revenue IS Obtained 4
from the low tax now on wooden goods \
than was obtained during the period (
he Mckinley law was in effect. and the
same viii be found 70 DE true when the
D.nglcr bin is enacted. \ So with other
II Mr.. Mills is speaking for TIE DEM
'cratic party, il may be said thar the
-epublican party is content TO meet
hin on the issues thus raised. The new
ariff bin is offered to the country in
III confidence that it will prove to be
wise and beneficial measure. which will
provide all the revenue needed 70 meet
public obligations and ut the same
ime afford protection 10 American in
Journal