Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
January 30, 1897
The L'anse Sentinel
L'anse, Baraga County, Michigan
What is this article about?
The editorial defends the Republican tariff approach in hearings before the Ways and Means Committee, criticizing Democratic low-tariff policies like the Wilson bill for insufficient revenue and harm to domestic industries. It supports Chairman Dingley's plan for balanced duties that ensure revenue without prohibiting imports, leveling the playing field for American manufacturers.
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
THE TARIFF HEARINGS.
Democratic Misconceptions and Misrepresentations—The Common-Sense Plan.
The democratic papers are worrying over the tariff hearings before the ways and means committee. They publish what various people ask for in the way of duties on competing foreign products, and hold up their hands in holy horror at the impudence and selfishness which they profess to discover in these requests.
They assume, evidently, that the ways and means committee is going to do, in every case, what is asked. In this they are mistaken. That committee is made up of men of brains and experience, who are not to be misled by any man's individual greed.
Chairman Dingley has announced that the first care of the committee will be to see that abundant revenue is secured. That means, practically, that duties will in no case be placed high enough to act as a prohibition. If the duty on an article is so high that it cannot be imported and sold at a profit, none will be imported, and hence there will be no revenue from it.
This would be one extreme. The Wilson bill goes to the direct opposite. The duties it imposes on the staple articles which form the bulk of our imports are so low that, though imports are large, the duties collected do not furnish enough revenue.
The new Dingley bill, which is in preparation now by the ways and means committee, will avoid both extremes. The schedules will be high enough to bring in sufficient revenue, but not so high as to stop imports. The central idea the committee has in mind is to put the domestic manufacturer and the importer on a level. The duties on competing articles will cover the difference in the cost of production between Europe and America.
What fault can the democratic critics find with that course? We have tried a low tariff which gives us too little revenue and injures our great productive industries. Every sensible man admits the utter failure of the Wilson law. Why not adopt the common-sense plan of a tariff that will bring in enough money, and avoid giving foreign manufacturers an advantage over domestic ones in our own markets?—Cleveland Leader.
Democratic Misconceptions and Misrepresentations—The Common-Sense Plan.
The democratic papers are worrying over the tariff hearings before the ways and means committee. They publish what various people ask for in the way of duties on competing foreign products, and hold up their hands in holy horror at the impudence and selfishness which they profess to discover in these requests.
They assume, evidently, that the ways and means committee is going to do, in every case, what is asked. In this they are mistaken. That committee is made up of men of brains and experience, who are not to be misled by any man's individual greed.
Chairman Dingley has announced that the first care of the committee will be to see that abundant revenue is secured. That means, practically, that duties will in no case be placed high enough to act as a prohibition. If the duty on an article is so high that it cannot be imported and sold at a profit, none will be imported, and hence there will be no revenue from it.
This would be one extreme. The Wilson bill goes to the direct opposite. The duties it imposes on the staple articles which form the bulk of our imports are so low that, though imports are large, the duties collected do not furnish enough revenue.
The new Dingley bill, which is in preparation now by the ways and means committee, will avoid both extremes. The schedules will be high enough to bring in sufficient revenue, but not so high as to stop imports. The central idea the committee has in mind is to put the domestic manufacturer and the importer on a level. The duties on competing articles will cover the difference in the cost of production between Europe and America.
What fault can the democratic critics find with that course? We have tried a low tariff which gives us too little revenue and injures our great productive industries. Every sensible man admits the utter failure of the Wilson law. Why not adopt the common-sense plan of a tariff that will bring in enough money, and avoid giving foreign manufacturers an advantage over domestic ones in our own markets?—Cleveland Leader.
What sub-type of article is it?
Economic Policy
Taxation
Trade Or Commerce
What keywords are associated?
Tariff Hearings
Dingley Bill
Protective Tariff
Revenue Duties
Wilson Bill
Domestic Industries
Foreign Competition
What entities or persons were involved?
Ways And Means Committee
Chairman Dingley
Democratic Papers
Wilson Bill
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Support For Balanced Protective Tariff In Dingley Bill
Stance / Tone
Pro Republican Tariff, Critical Of Democratic Low Tariff Policy
Key Figures
Ways And Means Committee
Chairman Dingley
Democratic Papers
Wilson Bill
Key Arguments
Committee Prioritizes Abundant Revenue Without Prohibitive Duties
Wilson Bill Provides Insufficient Revenue And Harms Domestic Industries
Dingley Bill Balances Revenue And Imports By Equalizing Production Costs
Low Tariffs Give Foreign Manufacturers Unfair Advantage
Protective Tariff Is Common Sense Approach After Wilson Failure