The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1897-05-13
WILSON vs.. DiNGLEI ! .
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES AG
SURDITIeS OF THE CINGLEY BILL.


Ex-Pos;master General William L.
Wilson is credited with the authorship
of the tariff bill Low in force. His
bands 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. 1t was, how
ever, a great Improvement upon the Nc
Kinlcy bill and is model as compared
with the Dingley monstrosity. We
quote the following from Mr.. Wilson's
criticism of the Mckinley and Dingley
bills in q 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 NAV be we'll TO consider the effect OF
the first bill on the revenue of the coun-
try, Both bills are vest 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 protecticnist 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 phi
vate pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. If times are depressed and less
money than Is needed pours into the
treasury, he seizss the prete1t OF in
creasing public revenues BY adding
enormously to the amount Of private ex-
action.
The act of 1890, whatever its other
effects did reduce revenue. From a
large surplus it swept rs headlong to a
deficiency. although it weighted the
people with heavier taxes and although
another Law, passed in July, 1890,
turned into the treasury as part OF the
general assets to be used for paying ex-
penditures q trust fund Of more than
e54, 900, ,OG0 which belonged to the ma
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-
f,unted 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 $40, 600, 600 Of token
and subsidiary coin not before treated
as q treasury asset With these extraor-
dinary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 30, 1898, with a sur
rlus of only $2,S41,674 as against q
surplus for che fiscal year June so,
1890, Of over s86. 600, 600 before the
above trust fund and subsidiary coin
were touched. And during the fiscal
year ended June 80, 1894, through all
Of which the Mckinley bill wCs in force.
expenditures exceeded the revenues to
The amount Of sas. sOS, ,260. notwith-
standing the f,ac, that the expenditures
Of the government were s15, 95a. 674
less than in the preceding year.
This statement shows how absurd and
Iyroundless is the claim constantly made
Iby the protectianists that recent deficits
in 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 a 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 $1S2, 900, 900 in 1894,
the last year of the Mckinley bill, to
even sl52, 900, 600 in 1895 and to over
Sl80, 900, 900 in 1895.
In the sugar schedule alone the bal
ance in favor of the existing law is
about s55, 900, 900. The customs reve-
nue. reached nearly $40, 900, 600, scarce
ly any of which would have been 10
ceivable under the Mckinley bill
That the Dingley bill, present condi-
tions considered, is the most ultra pro-
tective tariff ever proposed to be enact
ed in this country plainly appears from
Chairman Dingley's statement that II
levied on the importations OF the last
fiscal year it would have increased the
revenue s112, 900, 0o0-that is to say, 1t
would have gathered from an importa-
ton Of $775, 724, 264 of imported mer-
chandiss the enormous sum Of S272,-
600, 900, which Is nearly 500, 600, OO0
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 S7O,"
OO0, 900 is only another way OF saying
that to that extent such rates are pro
hibitory.
American consumers are shut in thG
home market 10 be preyed upon BY com"
binations and trusts without possibili"
ty of relief from outside competition
Such combinations. by joining to keen
ND prices and to curtail production,
wage more merciless war against ths
employment, the opportunities and ths
compensation Of American labor thai
any possible competition from abroad