New-York tribune., 1909-03-24
DTSCTSSTNG THE TARIFF.

Now that the tariff bill has been reported ana
is being digested in hundreds of editorial sane
tums its trainers are likely TO wake up almost
any morning and find themselves famous Tor
doing things which they have not even darkly
imagined The erudition displayed in explain
ing the alleged effects of changes in the tarlH
schedules is imposing and in itself creditable'
But 4 good deal OF 1t must leave the reader per
picked and wondering.
We confess that we have wrestled IN vain with
an exposition of the supposed exactions Of the
new glove schedule offered yesterday by our
former neighbor The New York Times" Said
The Times:
The former distinction between mems gloves
and gloves for women and children has been
done away with. and the increased duties fail
with the greatest weight on tfe latter r. fn+ GIoLfS
which were taxed at 81 IS a dozen. are now
taxed 81. For each inch in length beyond FOUR
teen there is an added tax of 30 cents dozen, dozen
that gloves Of seventeen inches. "hlch were
formerly taxed at 81 25. will now have to pay
s. 05 a dozen, an increase of 124 per cent,
on the cheaper kinds of gloves II VIII
be necessary. according to the figures Of deal
ers furnished to The Tribune Of chicago 10
make the following changes: From IS cents
pair TO 81 S5 or 50 pair: from 81 90 TO So
from 81 80 to 81 80, from 50 80 to 81
If fourteen-inch gloves are TO pay 81 on
dozen pairs instead of 81 40 the increase in
duty is apparently 81 p a dozen, or 1884 cents
a pair If seventeen-inch gloves are 10 pay
s. O5 on a dozen pairs instead of 81 %. the
increase In duty is apparently s. 50 Dozen or
% 1-3 cents pair. These are maximum IN
creases. since they affect the varieties of gloves
classed by the trainers of the Payne bill as
luxuries But if the increased tax runs from
1894 cents pair 10 % Is cents what excuse
can be found for saying that the prices of gloves
of various classes must be raised from - cents
.to 81 30 or So. from 81 30 10 So. from 50 20 to
"s4 20 and from s. 80 to ST.? The conclusions
reached are certainly not justified by the prem
ises.
We find In Yesterdays issue of The World
this curious explanation of the effects Of the
countervailing tax on coffee. coming from coun-
tries states or provinces which impose export
duties on coffee:
VIII not the maximum and minimum provi-
sion as THE World" suggested when the bill
was reported. in practice rob the consumer:
The maximum rate must be enforced against
Brazil because she has export coffee duty.
That would nearly q cent a pound tax
upon three-f fourths of all the coffee get The
retaliation would he upon the American peo-
might be obliged. TO use the maximum rate even
against our best customer. Great Britain.
The application of the maximum rates of duty
under the provisions of the Payne bill is not
made 10 depend in the least the levying or
non-levying by any foreign country Of export
duties The sole condition which the maxi
mum schedule becomes effective is that n for
eign country shall fail 10 concede on the articles
which we send it as low rates as it grants on
similar articles imported from any other coun-
try The collection by Brazil OF export duty
on coffee will therefore not necessitate the
forcement Of the maximum schedule of the new
tariff law against all Brazilian imports into
the United States 4 few of the Brazilian
states now lay such an mpost. and if that tax
IS added 70 the price of coffee here the Amer
lean consumer is already paying ii. The counter
vailing duty will apparently average not near
" cent pound bur less than half a cent.
and If the other coffee producing countries and
the states In Brazil which do not lay export
duties can send enough coffee here 10 control
the American price. the countervailng duty VIII
have TO be paid, not by the American con
sumer, but ny the Brazilian producer.
The Tribune has suggested that we might
''be obliged TO use the maximum rate even
against our bPstecustomer. Great Britain" only
in the contingency that the Payne maximum
minimum plan should be upset and the maxi
mum duties, not the minimum. made the nor
NAL duties We have argued against that change
as bad policy since il would work an Injustice
10 Great Britain, anG the commerce of the
United States with Great Britain is more than
one-fourth of IT'S total foreign commerce. We
do not think that the Houses maximum mini
mum scheme viii he upset and our Washing
ton dispatches say that its advantages are now
generally recognized. What The Tribune homes
for is the passage of Il reasOnab BILE and effective
tariff law. and while the.debate on the tariff
lasts a fair and intelligent discussion Of the
probable effects Of the pending measure