The Advocate and news., 1898-10-05
COMING soCIAL1sr1O TAxAT1oN.

true friends, the Populists. on the same
day the announcement was made that the
largest tin plate factory in Wales Is TO be
moved to the United States. This action
was caused by the Mckinley duty on tin
plate, which Democrats and Pops affirmed
could never be manufactured In this COun-
try. WOrkingmen stand by their friend,
McKinley.-TOpeka Capital.
Now, let us think on this.
We asked for the name of the Largest
tin plate factory in Wales" but it was
not forthcoming.
While waiting for it, however, we can
take time to examine that wonderful pro-
teCtive tariff policy which the Capital
smuggles up so close against.
All the wisdom of Mckinley and every
other protective tariff Republican who
has worked at his job in this line is
supposed to be embodied in the Dingley
bill This great bulwark of our nation,
it will be remembered succeeded the
miserable Wilson bill. According to the
Republican st. Louis platform OF 1896
this Wilson tariff did things which were
injurious to the public credit and de-
structive to business enterprise" Dur
ing the fiscal year ending June 30, 1897,
this Wilson tariff left deficit in the
national finances of $1S,62S,OOO.
What tidings Of the Dingley bill?
During the fiscal year ending June 80,
1898, the customs revenue was $26,496,-
799 less than during the fiscal year end
ing 1871 comparison between the
Wilson and Dingley tariffs not especially
pleasing to our Republican friends.
But they have argued that the Dingley
bill was anticipated, and that large ad-
vance impOrtations cut down normal
revenues, so we were asked by Mr.. Ding
ley not to pass judgment until after Jan
uary /, 1898. Well, here are few more
figures: From January /, 1898, to July l.
1898, our customs revenue was $86,994,-
573; between the same dates of 1897, un-
der the Wilson bill, it was $lO8,494,711
or twenty-One million, five hundred thou
sand, one hundred and thirty-eight dol
lars more from Wilson's bill than from
the Dingley- Mckinley tariff!
The Republicans do not explain this;
they do not dare to.
But there is a simple explanation. The
protective tariff system as means Of
raising revenue has most emphatiCally
had its day. Admitting that it would
serve it's purpose in developing our man
ufactures what is more natural than
there should come a time when these
manufactures would supply our home
market and thus shut off our imports,
causing a corresponding decrease in our
customs revenue? In the early days Of
the country the tariff was mainly fiscal
instrument and the protective idea was
incidental; later this was changed Now
that both sides are worn out new sys-
tenn must be introduced.
There is no way out. Republicans who
are shouting themselves hOarse in favor
of expansion must be blind to see that
this new pet Of their is sucking the life
blood, pale and watery as it is, from the
former favorite, the protective tariff
beast
Under the present tariff sugar yields
more revenue than any other commodity
an average per year Of $SO,OOO,OOO from
an importation Of 1900, ,OOO,OOOO pounds
We are after the trade of Cuba, Puerto
Rico and the Philippines, whether we
annex them or not, and their sugar, as
we'll as that OF Hawaii, must be admitted
free of duty. What this means will be
realized when it is estimated that Cuba
alone is able to supply the full demand
of the Western hemisphere for sugar
Indeed, though held in extremely narrow
limits by war and Spanish selfshness,
Cuba has in the past furnished more
than one-half our sugar supply. The
sugar export of Hawaii has doubled in
the past few years. With the promised
development, what possibilities of free
hafOpo n