Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 November 1890 — A TARIFF TRICK. [ARTICLE]

A TARIFF TRICK.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION ON THE NEW TARIFF LAW. The Enormous Increase of Doty on Knit Goods, and How It Was Secured —The Hoard of Appraisers Completes the Job —A Good Chance to Pay Hlyh Prices. The longer the McKinley tariff law gets in its work the more clearly the tricks in it come to be seen and understood. One of these tricks has recently been uncovered by a decision of the Board of Appraisers. The effect of this trick is to impose a still higher duty on knitted wool underwear and hosiery than the bill seemed on its face to demand. It will be remembered that under the old law these goods came under the paragraph which fixed duties on “flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, and all goods made on knitting frames, balmorals,” etc. The duty imposed in this paragraph on all knit underwear and hosiery, if “valued at above 40 cents per pound, ”is fixed at figures ranging from 18 cents a pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem to 35 cents a pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem. In the McKinley law, however, the word “fabrics” is substituted for “goods” in the old law, the law now reading “knit fabrics, and all fabrics made on knitting machines or frames.” McKinley fixes the duty on such “fabrics” valued at abovo 40 cents per pound at 44 cents a pound and 50 per cent, ad valorem. The old duty was itself so oppressive thats imported goods costing 830 a dozen had to be sold in New York at 873 a dozen. This, however, did not appear to be enough protection for the domestic manufacturers. But these men were not satisfied, and so they struck for higher protection. The hey-day of protection then came in with McKinley and Reed, and was taken by the manufacturers as an invitation to mako more extravagant demands than they had ever made before. Those demands were made and wore promptly and fully honored by the high tariff party; hut, in honoring those demands, much more was given to the manufacturers than at first appeared. There was a trick in that word “fabrics” which has never been laid open to public view, and which, it is said, was carefully planned beforehand. It seems now that the manufacturers never intended to be satisfied with the largely increased duty of 44 cents per pound and 50 per cent, ad valorem. It was intended from the first that the word “fabrics” in this paragraph should not apply to knitted underwear and hosiery, although theee had been dutiable under this paragraph in the old law. There is another paragraph in the bill which covers “wearing apparel. ” In the old law this read “wearing apparel, except knit goods;” in the new law these Words, “except knit goods*” were quietly left out, and the way was thus prepared for the decision of tho appraisers that knitted underwear and hosiery should be taxed under this paragraph. The effect of this decision is to placo an enormously higher duty on the kind Of goods here referred to. The duty is raised to 49% cents a pound and 00 per cent, ad valorem. A high tariff paper, the Boston Commercial Bulletin, justly calls this “a terrific increase in rate ” The steps by which this increase in duty was reached may be seen by the following: ■ ts. $ e. (18 and 35 tinder the old law. three gradesand 35 (35 and 40 Apparent duty under new law 44 and 50 Beal duty by new decision 49 and 60 This decision was reached after some of the domestic manufacturers had directed the attention of the appraisers to the language of the two paragraphs. A letter from Senator Aldrich, the leador of the high tariff party in the Senate, was produced, in which the Senator said that it was the intention of the makers of the tariff to tax knit goods as wearing apparel under the higher rate of duty. This was of course done; and the people will now have to pay an enormous duty on all knitted underwear and hosiery made of wool. Is this one of the provisions of tho tariff law which, as the protectionists assuro us, the people will like the longer they pay it and the better they come to know it? They are taking consolation to themselves for thejr crushing defeat on Nov. 4 by saying that the new law had not been in effect long enough for the people to understand what a good good law it is, and that by 1893 tho people will see the good features in it which they failed to appreciate in 1890. The blindness and folly of these tariff makers passes belief. They do not sec that the longer the people pay these duties the leas they will like them. The people said on Nov. 4 with unexampled emphasis that they prefer cheapness rather than dearness; and there is not the slightest probability that they will change their minds on that subject by 1893—nor, for that matter, by 1993. “McKinley prices" are doomed.