Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 March 1884 — THE MORRISON BILL. [ARTICLE]

THE MORRISON BILL.

Reasons of the Majority of the Way* and Means Committee for Favoring Its Passage, The Arguments of the Minority on the Opposite Side of the Question. The majority and minority reports of the Ways and Means Committee on the Morrison tariff bill were submitted to the House on the 11th of March. The division was upon strict party lines. The majority report was prepared by Mr. Morrison, while Mr. McKinley, of Ohio, formulated the views of the minority. We present herewith a brief abstract of the two reports:

The Majority Report. ’ The majority say that the committee has sought to present a rcheme of tariff duties in which substantial reductions should be the distinguishing feature. The average reduction in rates, including that from the enlargement of the free list and the abolition of duties on charges and commissions, is not lees than 20 per cent, and may reach 25 per cent The majority report says: The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, in explanation of the bill before the Senate last year, which, after various amendments, became a saw, estimated at $45,000,000 the reduction in revenue which would follow the changes ih the tariff. These calculations have not been verified. So the question still presses, What legislation is necessary to relie people of unnecessary taxes? Your committee find that in the six months ending Dec. 3, 1883, merchandise was imported into the United States valued at $238,898,109, on which duties were paid amounting to $96,514,130, being 40.91 per cent, on the value thereof. In the corresponding six months of 1882, under the old Jaw, the value of dutiable imports amounted to $360,856,273, and the duty paid was $111,266,507, or 42.65 per eent on the value. It thus apnears that the average cost of importing was only 1.74 per cent less under the new than under the old law. The nominal reduction made by the proposed bill is 20 per cent., or one-fifth the present rate. With the Morrill tariff limitations >n the bill, and the liquor and silk schedules omitted, the actual reduction will not exceed 15.74 per cent The average reduction made in the tariff-commission bill and that to be made by the proposed bill, together, do not equal the reduction at which the commission aimed. “The decrease in revenue, as shown by the receipts under the new law, other than that resulting from the nominal reduction of 1.74 per cent, results from the falling off of nearly $25,060,000 of the imports in the first halt year under the new law, as compared with the first half of the previous year under the old law. The reduction of revenue under the bill reported is estimated at $31,000,000, on the basis of last year’s imports. To the extent of that $31,000,000 the bill will relieve the people of unnecessary taxes. To that extent taxes will be reduced directly as a measure of justice to consumers, and indirectly in largely increased proportions. From the Statement made by tjie Bureau of Statistics, it appears that the duties or tariff taxes were decreased on some and increased on other articles under the new law but, while this is true, there has been no increase in wages in any, but a reduction of wages in most industries, as well as in those whose competing.products received more, as tn those that obtained less protection under the act of March last.” Referring to the condition of the iron and steel trade, as one of the leading manufactures, the report attributes the depression and the enforced idleness of the workingmen to the enormities of the protective system, and declares that as such calamities always fall upon the laborers, the committee had decided to report a bill for the partial relief of the people from unnecessary taxes.

Views of the Minority. The minority of the committee, comprising all the Republican members, object to the passage of the bill on the ground that Congress made a general revision of the tariff at its last session, warranted by the fact that there had been no general revision since 1864-65. The new tariff has been in operation since July, 1883—too short a time to have given it a practical test. The bill reported by the majority proposes a reduction of 20 per cent, and not a single interest in the United States has asked for it. On the contrary, every Interest represented before the committee—manufacturing, laboring, and agricultural—has protested against it. The free trade clubs of New York and Brooklyn, represented by a number of so-called political economists, have urged not this reduction alone, but the entire abolition of import duties which In any way discriminate in favor of American producers. While aU unite in opposing reduction, some interests assert the necessity of an increase of duties for the maintenance of the industry and the labor employed therein. The wool growers of the country, representing every State in the Union, demand the restoration of the wool duty of 1867. While the minority have sought to respond favorably to this demand of more than a million of their fellow-citizens, the majority, not content with a refusal of the request of this large class of producers, deliberately propose to reduce the duties stiU lower. While opposing a general revision, the minority think that there are inequalities which ought to be corrected. Among these, they say, wire rods, cotton ties, and tinplates bear greatly disproportionate duties to kindred articles and should be made consistent and harmonious. The bill, the minority say, Is apt proper at this time, because, first, it will disturb business; second, it will of necessity force down the price of labor in the United States; third, this proposed reduction will inevitably increase foreign importation, and as a consequence increase our revenues, to which every interest of the country is opposed; fourth, it is wholly unnecessary, unjustifiable, and in every respect and to every American interest only hurtfid; fifth, it has none of the elements of a carefully matured tariff bill; sixth, the feature of the bill which applies ad valorem rates to most of the schedules affected by it is especially objectionable, because,it will greatly increase the existing evil of undervaluation, and consequent frauds upon the revenue, as well as to so complicate the rule of assessment of duties,as to greatly embarrass the administration of the law. The minority conclude as follows: “In the belief that the late tariff legislation would remain without material change for a period of years, business has adjusted itself to it, and producers have entered into contracts and generally arranged their business, in character and volume, in conformity with it. All classes of our people have relied upon its reasonable permanence and freedom from immediate and radical changes, so that every consideration appeals to Congress to let the present law alone, and permit the business of the country to proceed without legislative disturbance. What the country wants most is relief from Congressional agitation. All of the industries of the country are extremely sensitive, and just at this time, when business is more or less depressed in every branch, the threat or fear of a change introduces an element of uncertainty and disturbance throughout the country, the evil effects of which no one can foresee. Twenty per cent, reduction, or any reduction, however slight, following so close upon the reductions made last winter, cannot be defended as to a single schedule of the tariff, and as to many it can be shown to be wholly disastrous. We believe that, after a sufficient trial of the effect of the last revision, if it shall appear that the industrial interest s of the country can be maintained with, and the condition of the treasury •will justify, a further revision, such action will be more wisely undertaken by the friends of tho protective system and with less disturbance to the public prosperity than if done now by the avowed advocates of the destruction of the American system of protection.”