Los Angeles herald., 1909-04-15
AMERICAN TARIFF LAWS
XVYE-The Dfngley Tariff
BY FREDERIC j. HASKlN

proved the Democrats to be more near
ly right in that contention than the
Republicans. The average rate on free
and dutiable goods during the first four
years of the Dingley tariff was APP
proximately 2s per cent. During the
forty-seven months under the McKin-
ley tariff the average was approx
mately % per cent Taking dutiable
goods alone the average under the two
laws was substantially the safne-ap-
proximately 40 per cent.
Mr.. Dingley was also mistaken as
to the amount the new tariff law would
add to the customs receipts. He stated
that based on the importations OF the
fiscal year ending June 80, 1897, 1t
would be $t12000,000 more than what
1t was under the Wilson German law;
but in order to be conservative he
would place the added revenue from
the first years operation of the bill at
SIS, 000 900. What actually did happen
was that the importers, seeing the
prospect of a very high tariff, flooded
the American ports with their goods
before the Dingley law went into eff
feet, and it's first years operation
brought in receipts amounting to $27,-
000 900 less than those of the last year
under the Wilson German law. There
after the receipts began to increase,
but even then 1t took four years for
them to get S75000,000 ahead of the
last year under the Wilson-G German
tariff. All this shows how even the
most competent of the tariff experts
may go wrong in his calculations.
Not all of the error. however. was
due to miscalculation, but some of 1t
was the result of failure of plans.
Seeing how great an advantage the
importers were taking of the days OF
low tariff grace the. house proposed to
make the law retroactive and thereby
catch all the imports which came in
after April l.. But the senate doubted
the constitutionality of such pro-
vision and struck Il from the bill.
Much has been heard about the con-
stitutionality of protection. In 1882 the
Democrats bantered the protectionists
to state in the preamble of the tariff
of that year that 1t was ''for the en-
coufagement of manufactures" de-
claring that they wanted to determine
the constitutional question once for all.
The protectionists refused, perhaps for
fear of the verdict that might be
handed down by Democratic supreme
court. In 1897 these words were used,
but as yet no low tariff man has been
bold enough to trust a decision or the
matter to supreme court while a
majority of its members are Republic
cans. It is perhaps the most important
question in the history of the country
upon which there has not been rem
dered a judicial opinion.
Mr. Taft has the distinction of hav-
ing written the shortest message on
q general revision of the tariff that has
been written in many year. Mr.
McKinley's message was about a third
OF column long. and stands close to
that of Mr.. Taft In the matter OF
brevity. In a great many ways the
history of the present tariff bill is a
duplication of that of the Dingiey bill.
The introduction of both followed hear
ings held in previous congress. Both
extra sessions met on March To- Both
times the ways and means committee
was practically the same that 1t had
been in the previous congress. The
Dingley bill was introduced the first
day of the session, while the Payne bill
was held up for two days. The Ding
ley bill was reported back to the house
four days after its Introduction. and
the Payne bill two days. The rule for
the consideration of the Dingley bill
made the house debate very short. 1t
provided only ten days altogether for
it's consideration in the house, half OF
this to be taken up in the considera-
ton of amendments, during which time
those of the ways and means commit
tee should have the preference.
AS the bill finally passed the senate
II carried S72 NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
more than any other tariff bill that
was ever sent to conference. About so
per cent of these were finally agreed
to by the house, certainly more than
had ever been accepted by that body
on any other tariff bill. The act was
finally passed on July "a and the ink
was hardly dry on 1t .,efore 1t reached
the president and was signed. The
constitution gives the house the right
to originate revenue legislation. but IL
1t enjoys any advantage over the sem
ate by constitutional grant 1t has
largely lost 1t by failure to insist on
its prerogatives. In nearly every tar
if bill of recent years the senate has
made a crazy-quiit patchwork of the
house bill and has then forced the
house to accept from two-thirds to
four-fifths of its amendments.
Copyright, 1909. by Frederic J. Haskin)