Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1909-09-01
A GOOD TARIFF LAW.
Admirablc summary Of the Psyn,

reader is not an easy task. In the House
an July 81, Hon. s. w. Mccall, Con-
oressman from Massachusetts,, made a
speech which seems to accomplish this
task so nearly that that speech, even after
this bill has become law, seems worth
while printing.
MIR. Mccall is a member OF the ways and
means committee, and was a member of
the Conference committee. His speech was
as follows:
"Mr. Speaker: l always listen to the
gentleman from Missouri, who is the
leader OF the minority party, with great
deal Of pleasure, although do not lind
myself usually in agreement with his con-
clusion; but he demonstrated absolutely
to- day two propositions. He first stated
that he could take two men, expert in the
use of figures, and could prove two an
tagonistic conclusions with reference to
the tariff. The figures would not lie, but
the experts would. And he then pro-
ceeded to present set Of figures to the
House which proved that he must have
employed the services Of the most accom-
plished liar in North America. Laugh
ter.
"And l am not questioning the
figures at all, but the conclusions to
which they appear to lead. His expert
had taken up the different schedules Of
the pending bill, and attempted to show
that it gave no practical reduction, and
he employed figures to reach the con-
clusion in this way: He took the rev.
epues that are now derived under these
schedules and the revenues that he ''fig-
ures'' will be derived under the proposed
bill, and he calculated up from the diff
ference in the revenues that the reduction
was practically nothing.
"But whats transparent fallacy was in
yolvedl 1t has been the contention of no.
body that the bill before the House was
going to reduce the revenues At the Gus
tom houses. On the other hand, we have
had it in view to increase those revenues.
II we had made the duties prohibitive,
there would be no revenue, and by this
method it would be argued that we had
revised the tariff downward.
ave might have brought in bill founded
on the English system, where upon I'VE
articles alone, counting liquors IS one,
they produce . revenue at the custom
house OF more than l6S, 900 900. Multiply
that by 2, which is about the ratio OF our
population to that of Great Britain, and
we should produce over s317 ,0O0, 900 upon
those five articles. A tariff bill like that
would be q free-trade tariff; and yet, upon
the theory of the gentlemsn's expert, We
should have produced no downward revis-
ion Of the tarif because the revenues
would not have been decreased.
"Then the gentleman demonstrated an
other fact. Those OF us who have the
pleasure Of knowing Mrs. Clark know
that she is q woman Of remarkably good
sense. The gentleman from Missouri pro-
ceeded to prove that fact to the House by
saying that after she had read Mr.. Paynes
report she said his tariff bill would save
to the American people IS, OOO, 900, 900 every
year. That, to my mind, was highly
sensible observation.
snow let us look at the striking fact
brought out by the statistics that were
produced by the chairman OF the COM
mittee on ways and means. He shows
that we have reduced duties upon articles
which are consumed in the United States
to the amount Of about s., 0OO, 900, 900 every
year. Well, what is the democratic
theory?
The democratic theory is that the peo-
pie are not merely taxed upon goods that
are entered at the custom house, but there
is also an equivalent tax put on all those
commodities produced in the United States
and consumed here. Whether that theory
is true in its extent or not, there is no
doubt that customs duties upon goods in
many cases increase the price to the con-
sumer of the same kind OF goods produced
IN this country; and when the chairman
OF the committee on ways and means
shows that this bill decreases the duty
upon articles consumed by the American
people, necessary articles, to the amount
OF 5000, 100000 . year. and that it only
increases the duties upon goods consumed
to the amount, excluding luxuries, Of
S72, 900 900 year, it seems to me he has
demonstrated conclusively the tendency
OF this bill.
sit is said that this is not q revision
downward. Why, it is impossible for any
fair-minded man to take these schedules
and to go through them from beginning
to end and deny that it is the most effect
i've revision downward undertaken by any
tariff bill ever presented to the American
Congress.