Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1898-10-27
figures versus Democratic Presumption.

AT this particular time (an election is
close at hand, you know much is heard
concerning the failure of the Dingley
bill as a revenue raiser; that the ex7
penses of the government are much
larger than the receipts; that had it
not been for the war with Spain, which
gave a Republican administration an
opportunity to borrow money under the
cloak of requiring more than was fur
nished by the ordinary evenue meas
ures, the government would have been
bankrupt, and a lot of rubbish of a like
nature, from the free traders. A state
ment of the receipts under the Dingley
bill for the quarter ending September
80 has been made by the Treasury de-
partment, and is of considerable inter
est, particularly to the Democrats. who
so persistently declare that the Wilson
law was a very successful measure in
raising revenue.
For the months of July, August and
September the receipts from customs
amounted to $4S, IFS, 954. That amount
VObS MOI llltiuue any lllDlitS tolICelCo
under the internal revenue law, only
that collected as duties on imported
goods: a fact which should be borne in
mind by the calamity hoWlers. The eX-
the increased war duty on that article
was 1900, 900, leaving the actual
amount of customs collected under the
Dingley tariff law, $45.S 76, 954. The larg-
est amount collected under the Wilson
law for any quarter was $44, 1863, 1898, in
1895. The year 1896 was the banner year
under the Wilson law for the reason
that the importers had been holding
back foreign shipments awaiting the
enactment of a low tariff law, and rush
ed in large quantities of goods during
the first year that law was in force.
This is shown by the fact that the larg-
est receipts during 1894, in any one
Quarter, were $S5, 797, 243, and the largest
receipts in any n quarter of 1896 We're
S35, $50, 942. 1t will thus be seen that the
importations during the year 1895 were
unusually large by reason of the more
favorable terms to the foreign manu-
facturers afforded by the Wilson law.
Only once since 1890 have the custom
receipts of the quarter closed Septem-
Der 80 been exceeded, and that was in
1892, when the Mckinley tariff law was
in force, when $50, 6S6, 1853 were received
from duties collected on imported goods
| Under normal conditions the Dingley
law will raise more revenue than the
| Wilson law ever did, and at the sama
time it will afford protection to the
sheep and wool men, the cattle men and
the wv of farm products, as wei
as to the manufacturers.
The Democrats'in New Mexico are e
deavoring to create the impression that
| the Dingley law Except that one para
graph which they claim was enacted
by Mr.. FERGUSON without any helT
| whatever) is a failure. The figures here
| given are authentic and are conclusive
in showing up the insincerity of the
leaders of the Democratic party. They
claim to be protectionists when New
Mexico products are concerned, and yet
denounce the law which protects ter
@ritorial INDUSTRIES: they denounce pro-
lection as class legislation and the
robbery of the poor for the ben.
eft of the rich, and yet they claim thai
a Democratic delegate in the lower
house of congress secured the passage
of protective Legislation which has been
of vast benefit to New Mexico. By what
kind of sophistry can these two posi-
tons on protection be made to agree?
The voters of New Mexico have not
parted with all their senses or traded
their intelligence for IS cent lambs,
cent wool and s. %yearlings. Present
prices for sheep and cattle and wool,
under a protective tariff, are arguments
sufficient for all practical purposes
there is no theory in them.