The Sunday globe., 1901-08-11
THE TARIFF AND THE DINGLEI
LAW.


LAW,
1t is not our disposition to be con-
tinually harping on any one subject or
always to play upon a single string.
Nevertheless, we are moved to say
something more about tariffs and tar
iff reform because our contemporaries
have furnished a text lately by their
laudations of Dingleyism or the Ding
ley bill.
Before commenting on the fruits Of
Dingleyism, we want to call attention
to another interviewer who has lately
come to town and who gravely asserts
that times are too good to talk politics,
and that the talk about short crops is
altogether eyaggeration, and droughts
are not worth noticing. If ehat be true
there must be some colossal liars out
West and the story Of the people in
one Of the Kansas town parading the
streets in jubilee after rain, must be
a myth. We don't know, as we do not
live in Kansas. but if the stories Of
short crops out there are not true, the
Chicago Board Of Trade, on Friday,
August 9Th, did a very foolish thing in
raising the price Of corn because of
continued bad news from the corn belt.
We are not surprised at such stories,
however, from one who has great con-
fidence in Republican business meth
DDS, and who doubtless voted twice for
the men who praised the Sherman
purchasing act, after having voted for
II, and who criticised Democrats for
opposing it. As that act did much to
precipiate the panic Of 1893, it is alto
gether proper for men who voted for
it to throw stones at Democrats, from
a business standpoint,
AS for the Dingley bill, the question
might be asked with propriety: Why
with all the gold from the various
sources Of supply, is money getting
closer; in other words becoming
scarcer? Ifit has built up all the pros
perity why has there been any break
in the chain? Have good crops for
four years past and short crops i'm Eu-
rope had nothing to do with all the
prosperity? # continental Europe had
not needed supplies would the Dingley
/ bin have compelled these peoples to
buy? We need not answer such ques-
tions, for they are apparent, yet it is
protection argument always.
As for revenue, without the war
taxes the Dingley bill was admitted to
be a failure. II was in many instances
prohibitory and that is monopoly, and
nothing else With the war taxes too
much revenue is being gathered in, and
unless a speedy halt is called, notwith.
standing it is asserted with a sober
countenance by men who ought to
know better. that there will be no more
financial plunges. There will be a f.
uanclsl crisis come that will parallel
73 and SO, and may De worse than
either.
For a time a panic might be averted
by the Secretary of tho Treasury loan
ing to pet banks, but such loans would
only be makeshift4 The truth is that
none realize that fact more than the
men who are now praising the Ding
ley BILL for they are calling for Its
revision. If it has accomplished so
much, why revise it2 1t is because it
is failure that n revision is called
for. To revise it lis said is to perfect
it, If it has done all that is claimed
/ for it is don't need being perfected.
But it is not a perfect instrument, else
it. would be let alone
Another word has been brought into
play. and that must be a part Of the
revenue system. au addenda to the
Dingay BILL Reciprocity editors ayOw-
ing themselves protectIonIsts demand.
ing reciprocity as a part Of protection.
Reciprocity is free trade in streaks,
and without It protectionists, by acts
If not by words, admit IT, Their pro
lection laws without It would be fail.