The Forrest City times., 1897-08-13
THE HIGHEST IARIEE.
The New TariG Is Worse Than the
 Mckinley Tax.

mcNHniey inN.
 The new tariff law registers the high water mark In tariff legislation. The protection afforded by it is greaterSin
 important instances than that of the Mckinley law itself, which was con demned by the voters of this country as an odious measure. It is not inn
 probable that the Dingley bill, if it may
 be so called after its thorough revision. will go down in history as worse than
 the Mckinley law. There can be no justification at this day for the exces- sively high rates of duty which it im- poses. 1t is a continuation of war taxes
 in time of peace for the benefit, not of the government, but of private in- dividuals. The duties in many cases being so high as to be prohibitive, there
 will be no imports from which the gov
 ernment can derive revenue, but the taxes in such cases will go to private individuals in the form of higher prices for products and greater profits.
 The moderate protectionists of this country cannot approve such a tariff
 It cannot be justified by reason and business sense. The Dingley tariff, like the Mckinley tariff of 1890, is based | on the Morrill, tariff of the early eos, confessedly a war measure, hastily
 drawn and not intended to serve as
 the permanent model for system of taxation. The duties under the Morrill,
 tariff were made high in part as a com pensation for the internal revenue taxes then imposed. But when the internal revenue taxes were removed the rate of duty on imports was left unchanged, SO that in reality the protection af- forded by these duties was greater than in war times. This condition of things was so obviously unjustifiable that for
 decade or so after the close of the war little attempt was made to justify it. A reduction of duties was promised.
 not at the demand of the free traders alone, but to satisfy protectionists as well. Efforts to reduce duties were to a slight degree successful. Then came Mckinley, who put in force the war rates again. His act was called an act to reduce the revenue, and in order
 to accomplish this object rates were
 made so high as to prove practically prohibitive in many cases. The avowed object of the Dingley bill is to increase the revenue and to encourage industry in the United States. But the high pro- tective duties are so nearly prohibitive of revenue to the government that it was found necessary to resort to non protective duties and to internal taxes in order to raise sufficient revenue.
 The duty on hides furnishes one illus traitor of the way the Dingley bill is | likely to Encourage industry in the United States" For many years there has been no duty on hides. There has been growing up in this country a con- siderable export business In leather. The duty on hides will tend to prohibit the leather merchant of this country | from going into the foreign market
 with his goods. The duty in question was placed in the bill at the demand of representatives of a very few cattle | growing states, the electoral votes of which were for the most part cast for
 Bryan. Hides imported come mostly | from South American countries, with
 which hitherto 1t has been the policy
 to encourage trade, but which will be
 offended and repulsed by the duty on | hides -ChieaUo Racord Und