Washington sentinel., 1900-12-01
1t is
Ameno the spoil clear from
tatorp Caritf s;n;,no oI,, y,

Republican leaders that they hav'
at present no serious intention t
redeem their pledges to repeal o.
reduce the special war taxes OF
business. The long list OF con
templated expenditures, they say
will not permit any substantial re
duction Of the Treasury surplus
But if the Republicans in Con
gress will not lower the war taxes
there is another way in which they
can much reduce the heavy bur-
dens OF taxation without diminish
ing the Treasury surplus 60 which
they so fondly cling-namely. by
repeating or lowering the prohib-
itorV duties on numerous articles
OF importation. So far from re-
ducing the surplus, such policy
would in many instances increase
the revenues by stimulating inn
portationS whenever trusts at home
should make iniquitous advances
in prices against consumers. The
returns Of trade amply reveal the
eXorbitance OF the duties on many
articles OF general necessity and
comiort-duties which neither
serve for revenue nor for protec-
ton, but remain merely as legis-
lative screws Tor the use Of mon
opolistS. From the Protectionist
standpoint not decent argument
can be made in favor OF duties on
foreign articles when American
articles OF the same kind are pour
ing into ne utral markets in ever IN
creasing volume under conditions
OF absolute free trade. By adher-
ing to these duties the Protection.
lists are belving their own prInci-
Piles and professions.
In these columns some citations
have recently been made from an
essay OF Professor Jenks, OF Cor
nell University, on the relations OF
the tariff and the trusts. Although
a Republican and a Protectionist,
the Profess or frankly owns that the
Dingley act is the handmade, if
not the prolific mother, OF trade
monopoly, This is by no means
the only indication Of the appre-
tensions which exist among
thoughtful Republicans concern
ing the effects Oi the system.
Some time ago Commissioner
John A. Kasson declared that the
Dingley tariff could not have been
passed but for the argument that
its harshness would be mitigated
by treaties OF reciprocity. The
failure oi Congress to enforce such
poor reciprocity treaties as Com
missioner Kasson has been per-
mitted by tariff provisions to nego-
tiate shows how this hope was
frustrated. Quite recently Mr..
George E Roberts, Director OF the
Mint (another strenuous Republi
can), said that the party should re-
wise the tariff ana repeal or reduce
such duties as the development Of |
our industries has shown to be
superhuous.
How i'm portant and necessary
is this work oil tariff revision is
seen by glance at the official re-
turns oi trade. These returns sho Y
that on nearly all the products of
iron and steel, from wire nails to
locomotives. the existing protec-
tive duties are what Director Rob-
erts calls "superhuous." But the
duties on iron and steel products
in general are moderate compared
with many barbarous rates in the
tariff schedules. What do reason
able Prote etionists, such as are not
utterly blinded by self interest,
think OF the duties on clothing
wool, which averaged last year
upward ol 66 per cent; oi Ioa per
cent. on wooden yarns; SO per cent.
On blankets; 100 Der cent, on
cloths; Io2 per cent. on women's
and children's dress goods; no
per cent. on hannels; IS per cent.
knit goods, and 1903 per cent. on
shawls2 Are such brutal rates oil
duty necessary for protection1 Do
they not sufficiently explain why
cotton and shoddY enter so largely
into the woolen clothing Of the
American people, to the detriment
oil their health and comfoTt1
Under this precious system
sugar is subject to an average cutY
OF IS per cent; salt in bulk 80 per
cent; silk handkerchiefs, 6s per
cent; rice, 81 per cent; bay rum.
All per cent; japanese mattines.
"a per cent; marble, Iz4 per cent;
kid gloves, 80 per cent; lead and
its manufactures, 86 per cent;
wood screws, rag per cent; car
penters' files 56 per cent. fable