Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1909-07-20
#iseellanenus geadins.
THE NEW TARIFF BILL.
Outlook Gives Interesting Summary OF
Its Purport.

July 8, by a vote Of As to "a. 1t con-
tains about 400 paragraphs. The SEN
ate made $40 amendments to the house
provisions. AS the bill now stands in
stead Of being revision downward as
promised by the Republican party, the
rates have been generally increased,
all Of which is to the advantage Of the
manufacturers and the trusts, and an
increased expense is thrown upon the
consumer. The daily press of the coun-
try is seldom so solidly arrayed
against anything as it now Is against
this tariff bill of Mr.. Aldrich's. The
president has intimated that the bill
will have to fulfill the promises Of his
party, when 1t is ready for final adop-
ton.
The tariff law will be made In the
conference between the two houses OF
congress. Until this conference meas
ure shall have been reported and
adopted, it will be impossible to arrive
at a final estimate Of the revision &C
complished. Meanwhile the Outlook
has summed up what has been done
by congress during the last four
months recognizing the enormous COM
plexities of general tariff measure
and the lack of adequate information
available. We quote the following abb
stracts:
I'm the latter part of May table
was given out by the treasury de-
partment to show the amount of duty
that would be paid on certain neces-
stiles of life under the Dingley law,
the Payne bill, and the Aldrich bill.
On clothing valued at retail at ss7, the
Dingley act imposes duties to the
amount Of $32.12. On this same cloth
ing, according to the table, the duties
under the Payne bill would be $32.26,
and under the Aldrich bill $32.05. In
other words, the net result Of the re-
vision on nearly 500 worth Of medium
price clothing would be to increase
the tax IA cents under the Payne bill,
and to decrease 1t cents under the
Aldrich measure. Practically the same
results are disclosed on household
furnishings valued at $S5 included In
the same table. The amount Of duties
under either the Payne or the Aldrich
bill differs by only few cents from
that under the Dingley law.
obviously, these figures cover only
a fraction of the items Of tariff
measure, so that it would be unjust to
generalize from them alone. But a
more 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 published
valuable book comparing the senate
bill, as originally reported from the
committee on finance, with the Ding
ley law. This volume is based on the
figures furnished by the finance COM
mittee, and makes showing much
more favorable to the principle of
downward revision than the facts
would seem to warrant. For many in
creases in duty have been skilfully.
concealed in changes in classification.
Waving these increases, however, the
summary shows how insincere has
been the senate's attempt to keep the
campaign pledges. The imports OF
1907, exclusive Of those from Cuba and
the Philippines, have been taken as a
basis. On 75a per cent Of the valua-
ton Of imports for that year the du-
ties have been left undisturbed, on 10
per cent they have been increased, on
81 per cent they have been decreased.
That is, on more than 80 per cent Of
the imports the duties have been left
unchanged or raised. On less than 10
per cent 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 con-
stitute a large proportion Of the cot
ton importations. 1t makes no allow
ance for the heavy increases concealed
in the cotton schedules which were eX-
posed by Senator La Toilette and Sem
ator Dolliver. Further, 1t ignores the
proposed new basis of valuation which
Senator Aldrich estimates will add
$5,0O0,O00 a year to the customs re-
ceipts, and so will be equivalent to a
horizontal increase Of nearly II per
cent on all schedules. Against this
showing the statement Of the finance
committee that 1t has made 400 de-
creases in schedules to only 40 in
creases Is Of small value. The decreas-
es generally affect minor imports.
The increases are important items.
Thus, in the linen schedule there are
172 reductions and only one increase.
But the reductions are chiefly on nu-
merous varieties Of threads and twine,
on which the imports range from 81
to $500 a year. Altogether they affect
imports valued slightly in excess of
100000. The single increase is on
woven fabrics, of which $5,000,OOO
worth were imported in 1907. The
average decrease was 16 per cent. The
single increase was q per cent. Here
is real revision upward, where a per-
son glancing at the figures would nat
urally infer that there had been revis-
ion downward.
Unfortunately, no similar compila-
ton has been made for the duties in
the house bill. 1t contains few spec
tacular reductions. Iron ore, hides, and
bituminous coal are on the free list in
the house bill, while in the senate bill
there is a duty Of 25 cents a ton on
iron ore, Is per cent on hides, and 60
cents a ton on coal. The house duties
on leather goods, lumber and lead pro-
ducts are materially lower than those
Of the senate. On cotton goods the
house retains the Dingley rates as ap-
piled by the courts. The senate, un-
der the pretext of restoring the orig
inal Dingley rates, has materially in
creased them above the rates now COL
lected. On certain articles in the glass
and steel schedules, and on gloves and
hosiery, the senate rates are lower than