New-York tribune., 1909-05-19
TRF 4SURY OFFICI1LS RE-
cRFT ITS PUBLICATION.
Table Purporting to Shoe 1mount
of Dutv Collected on Various Neces-
sites Contains GIaIing Errors.
rF-orn The Tribune Rureau.l

r. the officials Of the Treasury Department thaI
erroneous and misleading statements concerning
,b.se bills should have found their way INTO
circulation. accompanied by the assertion that
the tabulation had been prepared by treasury
sxperts The attention of the Tribune corre-
spondent has been called particularly to a taple'
-i-+s5 on Monday hv The Boston Transcript
torovved by THE New York Evening Post
to-day. purporting to show the amount or
dutv collected on various necessities approx
,,stsIv forty in number, which ii is alleged was
committed by officials of the Treasury for the use
of the President. The table contains such glar-
ing errors that il obviously was not prepared ny
an expert. That il was prepared for the Presi-
sent is rrue but it was found completion TO
he SO misleading that il was rejected and was
never submitted To the Executive. When II feH
,,-n the hands Of the newspapers mentioned
tbsv eagerly and ignorantly swallowed it. The
Tribune correspondent also secured q copy. but
r.oognized its inaocuracy and did not use it
An exan naple Of the inaccuracies which the
table contains is to be found in the first item
rrnen's suits retailing al SIS" The table repre-
.snts the duty paid on such to he SO IS each
,,nder the DfnsIev Law and the Payne and Sen
ate bills The fact is that the duty on suits Of
that quality is only s476 Mems overcoats re-
failing at the same price are cited as paying
duty Of 81 SIS. whereas the actual duty is 50 o4.
Mems 81 hats are cited paying duty OF
es1-3 cents under the Dingley law and the Payne
bill. and IS SIS cents under the Senate bill.
whereas the duty is 81 cents under all three
measures. Mems shoes selling at retail for s. o.
the table represents as paying a duty of 62l2
cents under the Dingley Law and 87iz cents
under the pending bill while the actual duty
under the Dinglev Law is SIS cents. and under
the pending bin p cents.
SIMILAR INACCURACIES FOUND.
Similar inaccuracies are 70 he found through
out the table The case Of porcelain dinner sets
retailing a. 81 is one Of the most startling. The
table states that the duty under all three meas
urss Is 81 20 instead Of 81 6S the correct figure
The table gives the duty on watch movements
selling at retail at SS as 50 50 under the Dingley
Law. 20 cents under the Payne bill and So cents
under the Senate bill. The correct figures are
81 50 under the Dingley Law and 81 s. under the
pending measure. unless as is probable. some
reduction Is made before the tariff bill becomes
law The table cites the duty on a S15 tapes
try rug as So 3s= =tfle actual duty IS $ Is
Throughout the table alleged to have been
prepared by experts the exaggerations are al
most grotesque.s On as simple an article as re-
fined sugar, retailing at s. - per 100 pounds.
the table states that the duty is 81 95 under the
Dingley lsw and 81 90 under both the Payne and
whereas
IS from 81 80 70 81 - under all three
The table gives the duty on gold filed watch
cases retailing at $ s. 50 each. instead Of 81
the correct figure. and in the case Of women's
oloaks retailing for S15 the duty is declared
70 be 50 IS instead Of s. 81. the correct amount
So. too in the case Of wonen's cotton dresses
retailing for $40 each. the table states that the
duty is 81 each, whereas II is only s. - apiece
TABLE WHOLLY UNTRUsTWORTHY.
Further To enumerate the discrepancies would
be tedious. but z sufficient number of gross in
accurscies have been cited to show how wholly
untrustworthy is the table and 10 demonstrate
how unwilling are the Treasury officials to have
Il 90 forth as Information prepared by experts
FOR the use Of the President. OF course all the
deductions made from such premises this
table OF errors" misleading the table
itself, and the Treasury experts are too busy
with their legitimate work even to undertake TO
analyze them
In justice to those who have been deceived
into presenting this table as the work of
perts il is only fair say that the accom-
penyinG text explains that the retail prices
have been taken as the basis for computing ad
faiorem duties. and that 1t is not. therefore
strictly accurate" hut the figures cited here
demonstrate how far from strictly accurate"
Il really is. and could not be otherwise, in view
u 1t-S laCl tlat al N2lorem duties are COM
pgted or the wholesale price. It is not an un-
common occurrence for an article valued in
the custom house at 50 to retail at SO. As
Sum4ng that such an article was subject TO a
cuty Of 80 per cent ad vaiorem. the actual duty
PAID would be s. 10, whereas any calculation
oi the tariff based on the retail price would
make the duty s.. just double the correct
amount.
HUMOROUS SIDE OF SITUATION.
That so misleading a Ia houId have found
Us way into the public prints, accompanied by
'ee statement that the Treasury officials had
compiled it. is particularly distressing to the
oacials because of the impossbiHty of secur-
ing for any correction wide circulation as
N'e original statement viii enjoy. Earnestly
as they deplcre the mistaken publication how
e'er the officials cannot but appreciate the
"Vnorous side OF the situation. They freely
pfedic; that this rejected table. about 10 perish
II Some cavernous wastepaper basket, when it
"ss resuscitated and spread before the public
es the work OF an expert. viii now live 10 haunt
taenl through many campaigns. and some de-
care their confidence that IT VIII get promi-
heht place in the Democratic textbook of the
next campaign. Past experience has demon
Austed more than once the impossibility of dis
abusing the public mind of errors presented
With such verisimiiitude and when such errors
are susceptible Of being utilized for. political
purposes the task OF refutinS them is weIlnigh
hopeless
This ridiculous table will he embalmed in
me history Of nations" said on cficiaI to-day
II wiz rise TO plague the unfortunate would
- expert who compiled it for all time to come.
'ie ~ill read his egregiors blunders set forth
@s solemn facts in the British press he will
"a II displayed in far-oT Angio-Indian Jour
Continued on second page