The Brookings register. [volume] (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1903-1971, 1909-07-22
THE TARIFF BILL.


impartial and comprehensive review
of the tariff bill as follows:
The tariff law will be made in con-
ference between the two houses Of
congress. Until this conference lea
sure shall have been reported and
adopted ii will be impossible 10 ar
rive at a final estimate of the reyis-
ion accomplished. Meanwhile, how
ever. it is altogether appropriate TO
inquire what congress has been doing
i'm the last four months of tariff max
ing, and to learn whether the founda-
tions have been laid for a real re-
vision of the Dingley act in accord
ance with the campaign promises of
ing the enormous complexities of a
general tariff measure and the lack
Of adequate information available, the
Outlook is bound to believe from the
evidence at hand that neither house
so far has attempted a thorough-going
revision such as the country was led
to expect during the campaign. In
the latter part of May a table was
prepared in the New York custom
house, and given out by the treasury
department in Washington, to show
the amount of duty that would be
paid on certain necessities OF life
under the Dingley law, the Payne bill
and the Aldrich bill. On clothing
valued at retail at s97. the Dingley
act imposes duties TO the amount of
S3212. On this same clothing, &C.
cording to the table, the duties under
the Payne bill would be s32.26, and
under the Aldrich bill s31.9S. A re-
cent amendment TO the Aidrich bill
would increase this amount to S32.05.
In other words, the net result of the
revision on nearly 800 worth of med
ium-priced clothing would be to in
the tax II cents under the
Payne bill. and to decrease it : cents
under the Aldrich measure. Practical
ly the same results are disclosed on
household furnishings valued at SIS
included in the same table. The
amount of duties under either the
Payne or the Aldrich bill differs by
only a few cents from that under
the Dingley law.
Obviously, these figures cover only
a fraction OF the items OF a tariff meas
ure. SO that il would be unjust TO
generalize from them alone. But a
careful study of the proposed
revision does not materially alter the
impression which these figures create.
At the request of Senator La Toilette,
the bureau of statistics has publish
ed a valuable book comparing the
senate bill. as originally reported
the committee on finance with
the Dingley law. This volume is
based on the figures furnished by the
committee. and makes a show
ing much more favorable to the prin-
of downward revision than the
facts would seem TO warrant. For
many increases in duty have been
skillfully concealed in changes in
classification. Waving these in
creases, however, the summary shows
how sincere has been the senate's
attempt to keep the campaign pledges.
The imports of 1907, exclusive of those
Cuba and the Philippines, have
been taken as a basis. On ISM per
cent of the valuation of imports for
that year the duties have been left
lndisturbed, on Is per cent they have
been increased, on 9k per cent they
have been decreased. That Is, on
more than 80 per cent of the imports
the duties have been left unchanged
raised. On less than 10 per CEN
they have been reduced. In actual
operation the showing would be even
worse. For instance, the book Of
comparisons takes no account of the
additional duty of one cent a square
yard on mercerized fabrics, which
constitute a large proportion Of the
importations. 1t makes no
allowance for the heavy increases con-
cealed in the cotton shedules which
exposed by Senator La Toilette
and Senator Dolliver. Further, it
the proposed new basis of
valuation which Senator Aldrich es-
will add 5000. 900 a year to
the custom receipts, and so will be
equivalent to a horizontal increase of
nearly ~ per cent on all schedules.
this showing the statement
Of the finance committee that 1t has
made 400 decreases in schedules to
only 40 increases is Of small value.
The decreases generally effect minor
imports. The increases are on i'm
items Tins in tho linen