Evening journal., 1897-05-08
WILSON VS.. DINGLEY.
FORMER TARIFF MAKER EXPOSES he-
sURDlTIEs OF THE DlNoLEY BILL.


Ex-Postmaster General William L,
Wilson is credited with the authorship
of the tariff bill now in force. His
hands were tied so that he could not
make the bill nearly rs 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
Kinley bill and is a model as compared
with the Dingley monstrosity. We
quote the following from Mr.. Wilson's
criticism Of the Mckinley and Dingley
bills in a 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 may be well to consider the effect of
the first bill on the revenue Of the coun-
Try. Both bills are vast and yoluminous
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 q small part Of the people.
The protectionist has but one remedy,
which he applies whether the revenue
be redundant OF 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 pri-
vato pockets, and this reduces public
revenue. If times are depressed and less
money than is needed pours into the
treasury, he seizas the pretext 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 us 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 a trust fund Of more than
S54, 900, 600 which belonged to the na-
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-
fronted 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 $50, coo, 900 Of token
and subsidiary coin not before treated
as a treasury asset. With these extraor.
dinary additions, even, we wound up the
fiscal year June 80, 1898, with a sur
plus Of only S9,341,674 rs against a
surplus for tho fiscal year June so,
1890, of over $50, 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 tho Mckinley bill was in force
expenditures exceeded the revenues tC
the amount of 500, 803, 260, notwith-
= standing the fact that the expenditures
Of the government were $40, 952, GA
7 less than in the preceding year.
I This statement shows how absurd anC
2 groundless is the claim constantly made
] by the protectionists that recent deficits
I in revenue are due to the substitution
! of the existing tariff for the Mckinley
5 bill, Nothing is more certain than tina
s If the bill had been in force during thu
e last three years the annual deficit would
I have been immensely swollen, while th'
r people in season of depression ant
T. hard times would have staggered unde
= much heavier burdens of taxation. Evei
i in this disastrous period, customs dutie
under the existing law have increases
from less than S132, 900, 600 in 1894
:. the last year Of the Mckinley bill, +
-, even Sl52, 600, 600 in 1895 and to owe
sl6O, 600, 600 in 1896.
? IN the sugar schedule alone the bal
> ance in favor Of the existing law
: about $50, coo, 600. The customs reve
- nue. reached nearly $40, 600, 600, scarce
h ly any of which would have been It
~ ceivable under the Mckinley bill.
= That the Dingley bill, present condi
tions considered, is the most ultra pro
=, teotive tariff eyer proposed to be enact
- ed in this country plainly appears froI
"A Chairman Dingleys statement that
4. levied on the importations of the Las
= fiscal year it would have increased tl
80 revenue Sll2, 600, 000-that is to say,
y. would have gathered from an import;
~ ton of S775, 724, 264 of imported me.
T.. | cuanulse lne tuOImOuS SUN Ol Cot <
\ 600, coo, which is nearly $50, 900, 0C
- more than any customs revenue ev'
~ collected in one year in this country
- the past And TO say that its rates wi
~ probably check dutiable imports to Il
~ extent Of reducing the estimate to $40
He GOO, 900 is only another way of sayiI
- ~ that to that extent such rates are pr
a. hibitory.
American consumers are shut in Il
% home market to be preyed upon by col
% binations and trusts without possibil
"a ty of relief from outside competitio
-. Such combinations, by joining to ke
- ap prices and to curtail productio
~ wage more merciless war against L
IN, employment, the opportunities and T.
~ compensation Of American labor th
'ls any possible competition from abro
could do
~ The falling off Of importations und
~ the present law dispels the illusi
Dy that the American laborer is anywhC
~ deprived of employment by the imp'
iaA totiop Of forpify1, frOducts The pratii