Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1902-10-14
For Congress, 4th Cong. District.
A. L. SORTER,
of Cerro Gordo County.
He Did Not Know.

In q speech delivered at Aida, VA,
Wednesday evening, Oct. l, Congress
man Walter I. Smith, contending
against the suggestion that the pro-
ducts of trusts be placed on the free
list, said, 1.-TWO of the greatest trusts
Of the country are the coal oil trust
and the anthracite coal trust. An
thracite coal is on the free list and so
is petroleum, so these organizations
show that there is no necessary con-
nection between the trusts and the
tariff"
Congressman Smith may or may not
be interested in an editorial that re-
Gently appeared in the Chicago Her
aid, a republican newspaper. This
editorial is under the headline CAD
thracite and Standard Oil Both Pro-
tected." It is as follows:
civilian ]. Gibson, who was form
erly counsel OF the treasury depart
ment has written letter to the New
York Times which disproves the COM
monty accepted idea that the coal and
oil trusts do not benefit by the Ding
ley tariff.
Gas regards anthracite coal the law
undoubtedly juggles with words in q
way to deceive anyone but an expert
Section 523, which is under the free
list heading, reads: "Coal, anthracite,
not specially provided for in this act,
and coal stores of American vessels,
but none shall be unloaded." A search
for special provisions does not reveal
the word anthracite, but the follow
ing occurs in the dutiable list: "Coal,
bituminous, and all Goals containing
less than 90 per centum of fixed car
bon, and shale, 81 cents per ton Of
twenty-eight bushels, eighty pounds
to the bushei.'
Mr.. Gibson shows tLat the two
paragraphs were construed together
by the board of general appraisers
January II, 1898, SO as to make the du
ty apply to all anthracite having less
than 90 per cent fixed carbon, and il
appears that much the greater part o.
both the foreign and domestic anthra
cite falls below the PERCENTAGE. Prac
tically, then, from the commercial
standpoint, there is tariff of 81 cents
ton on anthracite coal, since the
construction of the appraisers was
confirmed on appeal. Further
more, this tax was was placed in the
Dingley law, though anthracite hac
actually been in the free lists of al
tariff acts since July IA, 1870.
The facts concerning pretroleun
are less definitely and exhaustivel
discussed by Mr.. Gibson, but his refer
ences to them are interesting and In
structive. He shows that while pc
troleum, crude OF refined, is marke'
free in the law there is provision TO
duty equal TO that imposed by an.
exporting country against the Ameri
can product, and that under this pro
vision the board of general appraiser
decided January %, 1901:
"That crude petroleum that hat
been produced in Russia and imported
into England, and there refined ant
afterward imported into the Unitet
States from England, although En-
gland did not impose any duty on pc
troleum or its production, yet that
was dutiable at a rate equal to the rat
imposed by Russia on pretroleun
imported into that country.
The conditions Of petroleum pro
duction are such that under this con
struction the proviso is as good as tn,
straightrout naming of duty or per
haps better. Mr.. Gibson calculates
that it is an advance ona form er duty
and that the Standard oil trust i
virtually protected by tariff on 1t
products which amounts to more thai
40 per cent.
We do not think that Mr.. Smith Il
tended to deceive his audience. H
simply did not know. 1t is not tn
business Of a republican congressman
to know.-Omaha World-Herald.
lk.s .sy