The Forrest City times., 1897-12-10
AS TO REVENUES.
Painful Delay in the Returns from the
 Dingley Tariff.


 In his speech before the Home Market club in Boston the other day Chairman Dingley was long on prophecy as to what revenue his bill would produce next year-and short on facts about the actual revenue producing power of his and other tariff bills. He said: Ut is certainly surprising that the same men who looked on without criticism while the tariff which they had framed showed a chronic deficiency for years, amounting to nearly $20O ,000, ,O00, should be so much disturbed because the new tariff has not produced adequate rev enue in the first few months it has been in force"
 If Mir. Dingley means that the deficits during the operation of the Wilson bill reached S200,0O0.000 he is sadly mis- taken. The total deficit during the Wilson law amounted to $S6.000,000. The deficit during the Mckinley law was S72 ,000.0 The deficit of the Ding ley bill to date is $42 100000. The total deficit, since deficits began in 1892, amounts to 2OO,0OO,0 ,00O, of which the Mckinley and Dingley laws are respon- hlDlt IoI plIt,OOU,OUU, tHu lHe NllSOu tariff for $s6,000, 900. Mr. Dingley isn't candid in his statements, to say the least.
 Retorting in kind, it might be said to Mir. Dingley that it is surprising that men who were so disturbed over the deficits under the Wilson law should not have framed a law to stop the de- felt which was said by Mir. Dingley and his associates to be the cause of all our national ills.
 ''Stop the deficit" was the cry of our republican friends, and hard times will disappear and the currency question will settle itself Our deticit-hating friends were summoned by the presi- dent to Washington in extra session to frame a bill to provide adequate rev enue immediately" The answer to the presidents summons was the Dingley bill, which has produced in five months and half deficit half as great as the Wilson bill produced in the three years of its operation. Mir. Dingley resents criticism of the deficit producing qual- ity of his bill. But will MT. Dingley tell us what, his bill was for if it was not to put an end to the deficit? Having failed to provide revenues equal to the expenditures, his bill fails to meet the purpose for which congress was con- vened. Not only is it a failure, but it is worse than failure, because it makes matters far worse than before, by mak- ing the chasm between receipts and ex penditures wider than ever.
 T the beginning of the next fiscal year" we will get revenue. What statesman ship! Congress called together last March to provide greater revenue jim mediately," passes law of which the best its author can say of it is that it | will begin to be effective year from the time it became law. But if Mir. Dingley's prophecies are no better on this subject than upon others upon which he has tried his powers the treas ury will be enjoying deficits after next July. Mir. Dingley sees improvement" but the officials in Washington do not. A dispatch from Washington relative to the revenues says:
 "Two-ffths of the working days of the month have now passed. and have afforded total receipts of se 5s5. .146 of which s3 992 TOT has been from customs, $4, ,932. .64S from in- ternal revenue. and s659.7s from miscel- | laneous sources This indicates total re- ceipts during November of about s24, ,000, ,000 which will not be an improvement over Oc- | tober.
 Both the customs receipts and internal revenue stand at about the average tor October and 1t will require an increase of about S6000,000 per month to put the treasury upon self-supporting basis" With no improvement month after month, our friend from Maine continues to prophecy perfection in the sweet by and by. While waiting for the Dingley lay to produce adequate revenue, the Mckinley administration may find itself under the painful necessity of is- suing bonds.-Utica Observer.