Judith Gap journal. [volume] (Judith Gap, Mont.) 1908-19??, 1909-04-30
DOWNWARD OR UPWARD?

DOWNWARD OR UPWARD?
fog of opinion that invaribly ac-
company any attempt to revise the
tariff, it is important that the layman
should be provided with Il plain and
simple statement Of facts upon which
lie can base correct conclusions. The
public is interested in knowing whetl-
er the bill now before the senate will
accomplish the purposes of this extra
session. For this reason the essen
tial features of the measure should
be explained.
The Dingley law carries an average
rate of duty of i+.95 per cent. The
largest amount of revenue that has
been raised under this tax in any
one year was 1892 ,233,3 1862, III 1907.
The average rate of duty under the
pending senate bill is +7.77 per cent:
the estimated revenues S33? 1852 $50
a higher average rate Of duties and an
estimated increase OF revenues OF only
$S,Sl9,3l7.
In his speech in the senate the
chairman of the finance committee
predicted that bill became Il law as it
now stands and with the adminstra-
tive clauses yet to be proposed, the
treasury receipts for 1911 would be
about So, OUO, 900 greater than they
were for 1908, and s32, o NJ, 900 in excess
OF those for 1907. The high water
mark in customs receipts as shown
above, was during the latter year.
In 1908 they were 1858, 1l3. 1870. The
chairman adopts the receipts for 1907,
which were over $6+ 900, 900 greater
than last year, as the basis of his
calculations.
Now, what the public is vitality con-
cerned about is whether, with an av-
erage rate Of duty 2.s2 per cent high
er under the senate bill than under
the existing law, there is any founda-
ton for the prediction that the reve-
nues will BE- almost 500, 600, 900 lar
ger in 1911 than they were last year.
How is such an unprecedented in
crease to be brought about?
Can it come in part III consequence
Of increased importations Of articles
in the sugar schedule, which shows a
proposed average rate of O.27 per cent
higher than the average rate in the
Dingley law? Can it come in part
from the lumber schedule, which Mr..
Payne showed in his report to the
house would produce only $2,026, 252
Of revenue as against $3.50, 1854 under
the Dingley law? Can it come in part
from chemicals. oil. and paints, upon
which the senate bill imposes average
duties O.5l per cent higher than the
average rate in the Dingley law? Or
in part from agricultural products
and provisions. with 1856 per cent
greater average rate than under the
Dingley law? Or in part from cotton
manufactures bearing an increased
tariff tax Of 2.s6 per cent over tht
Dingley rates? Or from flax. hemp
and jute manufactures, with increased
rates of O.4O per cent. Or from pulp
papers and books, with 2.21 per cent
increase? Or sundries carrying ;
U.55 per cent raise!
Out Of fourteen schedules in tn,
senate bill, nine Of them show in
creases over the average rate i'll thu
existing law and the rate il decreased
in but three, while two are MAINTAIN
ell ut the present rate.
1t will require exceptional skill t.
tlcmonst rate in the light of these fact
that there is to be any considerable
augmentation of the public revenue
in 1911 or any subsequent period
or that under the present plan OF re
vision there is any hope for Il down
ward tendency of prices rs resnl
Of lower duties.