The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-08-11
RE TURNS JUGGLED
Says DEMOCRATS
Says That Tariff Bill Has Not
Done What Treasury
Indicates
FALLING OFF SHOWN
BY THE FIGURES
When Strict Duties are Colnpar-
ed With 1907 Receipts
Figures Tell Another
Story.

WASHINGTON. d. c., August IL
review of the figures issued by the
Treasury Department on the revenue
returns for the first operative year Of
the Payne-Aldrich tariff law to- day
saows that the customs receipts, ex-
elusive OF all other revenue sources,
We're s3.l16,l54 less than the customs
receipts for 1907, the banner year.
democrats here have seized upon the
convenient neglect" as they term IL.
OF the Treasury Department to draw
TINS comparison IN their public state
ment. The Treasury Department gave
out only comparison Of the total
revenue returns. including In 1910 the
returns from the new corporations tax.
ms statement showed a gain in re-
ceipts for the last year OF some fifteen
million dollars over 1907. The total
was referred to In the statement ss the
total ordinary receipts OF the Payne-
A4drtch law" which the Democrats
assert would mean. to the layrnan, the
returns from the revised tariff
The Payne Aldrici L,w, though usu-
ANY thought of as the law affecting
customs duties, covers a wide field.
including Internal revenue, the new
eorporaeion Tax and various minor mis-
total of ss7s.s5e,s16, revenue produced
under the new Law. only ssts.117, 2es
was produced by customs.
Inc corporation tax provision
Which was not contained In the pre-
Fious law. procured some twenty-seyeu
million dollars. This, together with
the revenue gained by Collector Loeb
through the detection OF iong-standIns
fraud, was largely responsible for the
.otai surplus shown In the treasury
statement.
Banner Year,
Comparisons are made with 1907 be-
cause that was the greatesr revenua
producing year In the history Of the
country prior TO 1910. 1t is a fact that
the customs returns under the new Law,
WnaR compared with any year in the
past exclusive Of 1907. show AN IN
crease The Democrats, however.
point out that this cannot be credited
entirely to tho new bin. inasnuch as
a greater customs revenue was pro-
duced under favorable circumstances
In 1907.
These calculations and comparisons
are destined to play big part In cam
paign oratory this fail, according tn
the manner In which the leaders of the
TWO parties are working over them at
present
One argument drawn by the Demo-
Gratis from the comparison of the GUS
toms receipts with those of 1907 In that
the import tariff has been revised up-
ward fnsomuch as the volume Of du-
ties has decreased. This is deduced
on the so-cailed Mckinley theory.
that the higher tho duty the less the
imports.
The Republicans. however. put for
ward the claim that 1907 was not In
any respect a normal year Everything
was on the boom and customs receipts
naturally totalled an extraordinary
amount.
The Democrats aver that the new
law will never keep up the record that
II has established for itself In its first
year.
Treasury Department officials as
against the Democrat~, charge that
they avoided comparison OF the Gus
toms receipts. point out that both the
corporation tax and the internal reye-
nue. are part and parcel OF the Payne
Aldrich law, and should rightly he
counted In any comparison of revenue
just as internal revenue receipts we, a
counted under the Dingiey and other
tariff laws.