Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-05-03
VAGARIES OF new
TARIFF EXPOSED
Comparison Of Rates Shows IN
consistencies Difficult OF
Explanation.
ALDRIcH EXPONENT
ADOPTED IN MEASURE
Where Duties Advance Every
thing Is Labeled Luxury-Re-
auctions Cover Necessities.

Metropolitan National Bank Bldg,
WASHINGTON, March s.
When the Payne-Aldrich bin was
reported 10 the Senate, In 1909, the
finance committee made an elaborate
report and comparison of the new
rates with those Of the preceding
Dingley tariff, intended to show that
in response to popular demand for
cheapened cost of living, the duties
had been increased or left the same
only on Injuries, and had been re-
cfuced on all necessities of life.
To make this showing, Senator
aldrich's clever statisticians adopted
fhe very simple expedient of labelling
everything as luxuries on which the
duties had been raised. and marking
everything as necessities on which
there had been reductions.
Curiously enough, the self-same
argument is made for the Underwood
competitive tariff bill that was
urged for the Payne-Aldrich pro-
tective tariff measure. It is pleaded
by the advocates of the measure that
It's purpose is to reduce the cost Of
living by reducing the duties on
necessities of life. and the duties left
unchanged or increased in the bill
are explained on the ground that
these apply only to Injuries. which
are to be taxed to secure revenue.
Tarin vagaries.
ignoring the fact that a reve-
nue. tariff is designed wholly for the
raising of revenue, and that it is adj
i "a .4-f1I
duce a deficit. there are many curious
Inconsistencies in the proposed new
tariff law Some of these inconsis-
tencies are in the income tax pro-
vision, the most glaring of them be-
ing probably the exemption from
taxes of President Wilson, federal
judges and all State and municipal
office-hoiders everywhere in the coun-
try
Another is the provision. in the
same part OF the bin. that in assess
ing the income tax, the total incomes
Of all members of family shall be
considered as one income for pur-
poses of taxation.
Against Large Families.
AS the bin now stands. and as 1t Is
likely to become law. its tendency is
to; discourage large FAMILIES 1t. dis
eliminates in favor of the small fam
lies All incomes are exempt up to
1000. whether of an individual or
a family An unmarried man, or the
head of a small family. with sal
airy of $4,000 a year, will have to pay
nostaxes. The father OF large fam
sty, with salary OF $4,000 year. is
equally exempt, unless some of the
allildren are helping to support the
xamiiy II three or four Of the chill
dren under u years go to work and
earn collectively s., 900 a year the gov
eminent will take per cent. of their
servings in taxes.
How the authors of the Under
wood bill arrived at the decision that
automobiles are luxuries and aero
planes necessities is difficult to mag
Ire. but there is no other way of ex-
plainins the fact that the duty on
automobiles is left at 10 per cent, as
It was in both the Dingley and
Payne Aldrich laws, while on aero
planes the import tax is reduced from
IS to % per cent.
1t is also a little hard to under
stand why there should be. as pro-
posed, a greater reduction in the
duty on swords than on razors.
Schedule "K" Criticised.
1t has been pointed out by critics
ofsthe new schedule K that the argu-
nient for reducing duties on necessi-
ties and raising them on Injuries
tells down very badly here, since the
cheapest kind of wooden cloths and
the most expensive wooden fabrics
are 10 be taxed at the same per-
centage. The inconsistency of this is
made even more apparent by the fact
that the authors of the bill discrim-
mated between high-prieed and cheap
gloves. straw hats, stockings and cot
ton goods, putting heavier duty on
tie high priced articles than on the
cheaper ones.
At Is good oId-fashioned Democratic
-for-revenue- only doctrine, that
a high tariff produces less revenue
than a low tariff, because the lower
.,,e rates the larger the imports
Z Despite this argument we find that
the Underwood bill VIII put a duty
Of Is per cent. on alumnia. which car
ried only 7 per cent. under the Ding
ley tariff: that the duty on caffeir
Is to be doubled; on collodiom, which
paid per cent. under the Dingley
law, is to be Is per cent, and or
blue size is to be SO 1-3 per cent.
while under the Dingley law 1t was
only 20 per cent.
Dingiey Rates Unchanged.
Considering that the Republican
party went out of power because o.
Nts failure to reduce the DirfgleS
fAtes, it is rather surprising to fine
so\nany items in the Underwood bill
on Which the rates of the Dingiey Law
remain the same or are increased.
It rs announced that the tobacc'
tariff Is intended to hit body blow a
the tobacco trust. How it is intendet