The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-10-28
THE DUTY ON ANTHRACITE COAL
AND PETROLEUM.

The republicans began the campaign
with persistent denials tha+ the Dinglcy
bill placed tariff duties on anthracite
coal and petrole1rl. Ever President
Roosevelt during his tour through the
northwestern states denied that these
two articles were on the dutiable list Of
that act Of congress. These republican
speakers have at last admitted that he
democrats were correct in stating that
there is a tariff duty Of sixty-seve
cents 4 ton on anthracite coal, at the
same time stating that this provision
was ~smuggled into the bill. There is
no doubt about this latter statement so
far as the public and the democratic
congressman were concerned: but IL IS
hard to believe that those republicans
who had in charge the framing of the
measure n it's passage through c1E-
gress did not know of this tax. L
could not a been smuggle I into the
bill by some friends of the hard coal
interests of the country without those
men knowing it The ndnne in which
the provision imposing this customs
duty on anthracite coal was incOrpor-
ated in the bill shows that il was the
result Of some very dirty work. One
section of the Dingley bill says that an
thracite coal not specially provided
for shall be admitted free. Anthracite
coal is mentioned nowhere else in the
bill, but another paragraph says tina.
hifTIr1innnc md oil GOALS containing Lose
than 90 per cent of fixAd carbon shall!
pay a duty of sixty-seven cents. There
is no anthracite coal available for i'm
portatiOn which contains more than 80
per cent of fixed carbon. This last par
agraph has been construed by the
treasury department officials as over
riding the one admitting hard coal free
of duty. unless it contains the 92 per
cent Of ixed carbon, and there is none
such to be imported.
Because of the repeated denials of
prominent republicans that there was
any duty on anthracite coa The Ra-
leigh New and Observer wrote to The
Independent. a New York newspaper
of first class authority, and asked how
h law stood on this matter. Here is
that newspapers reply:
I'm the present tariff law. enacted
in 1897, under schedule N, Para
graph AS. you will find the following:
Coal bituminous. and all Goals ON
tanning less than 80 per centum of fixed
carban, 81 cents per ton
In the Free List, paragraph 523, you
will find the following:
Goal, anthracite, not specially pro-
vIded for in this act
THE effect of paragraph AIS is to
impose a duty of 81 cents per ton on all
imported coal, for the reason that there
is practically no coal that can be i'm
ported containing more than 50 per cent
of fixed carbon. Indeed even in the ma
thracite district of Pennsylvania there
is not n large quantity of coal contain
ing more than go per centum of fixed
carbon. You will observe that the in
clusion of anthracite coal in the free
list does not permit 1T to be imported
free of duty, because the free list para
graph contains the words not specially
provided for in this act"
The democrats charge tuat there is a
customs duty of fourteen cents a gal
Ion on petroleum. This the republicans
deny. The Independent has the follow
ms ~ % VII liz doCSNAOAA III dAAo"NA
to the News and Observers inquiry:
Now, as to the products of the stand
ard Oil Company. In the free list, par
agraph 626. you will find petroleum
crude or refined but there is added the
following provision:
Provided, That if there be imported
into the United States crude petroleum
or the products of crude petroleum pro-
duced in any country which imposes a
duty on petroleum or its products ex-
ported from the United States, there
shall in such cases be levied, paid, and
collected a duty upon said crude petro-
leum or its products so imported equal
to the duty imposed by such country
9TH effect Of this provision is prac-
tically to take petroleum and it's pro-
ducts out of the free list. In every
country from which 1t would be prac-
ticeable to export petroleum or it's pro-
ducts to the United States, there is i'm
posed a considerable duty upon petro-
leum or its products when imported
from the United States. For example,
there is a high tariff duty In Russia.
So that under this provision there is in
fact n considerable tariff duty upon Pc
troleum and its products when import
ed into this country, and in some in
stances this duty is very high"
This is a pretty conclusive proof that
there is a high tariff duty on petroleum
notwithstanding the denIals of the re-
publican speakers. This article, like
anthracite coal. is put on h free list.
with what appears to be an insignifi-
can proviso; but when you look into
the effect of that provlsO You find ii
completely nullifies the free list para
graph. just as is done with the coal
item.
Republicans when cornered on the
oil question try to get cut of the diff.
ficulty by saying it wou:1 make no diff.
ference if there were a heavy duty or
petroleum. for one would b. imported
if there were no such duty; that thi:
is the only country producing this ar
ticle TO any extent and that no othel
country has any to export to tn,
United States. Here again they de