174 



CONGRESS. (THE DINGLEY BILL.) 



alone. We imported last year about 100,000,000 

 pounds of c'jirpi't wool. Carpet wool is valued on 

 the average at 5).V cents a pound, which gives sub- 

 stantially a duty of 3 cents per pound, and 3 cents 

 per pound on 100,000,000 pounds gives us $3,000.000 

 revenue. We imported last year about 138,000,000 

 pounds of clothing wool. Now, if there should be 

 as much imported" next year under this tariff, if it 

 should become law, there would be, as I have al- 

 ready said, an increased duty of about $9,000,000, 

 making about $12,000,000 revenue from wool. 



" It is more than probable, therefore, that in each 

 of the next two fiscal years we shall be obliged to 

 import as much clothing wool as we imported in the 

 last fiscal year, and that being the case, we shall 

 obtain $12*000.000 additional revenue from this 

 source during that period. 



" From woolen goods, on which is to be laid a 

 compensatory duty equivalent to the duty on wool, 

 there would be a further increase of revenue to the 

 extent of $16,000.000 if the importation should con- 

 tinue as large as it has been since the new tariff on 

 woolen goods went into operation last January; but 

 .1 assume that when this duty shall be laid, being 

 specific, its effect will be to cut off, to some extent, 

 the importations of foreign manufactures of wool 

 coining into this market, which have already se- 

 riously injured that industry in this country. Nev- 

 ertheless, supposing such an effect should result 

 from the passage of this bill, with a reduction even 

 to the extent of one third of our current imports of 

 woolen goods, we should get about $12,000,000 ad- 

 ditional revenue from this source. It must be re- 

 membered that in 1892 we imported only $36,000,- 

 000 of woolen goods, while in the present calendar 

 year the importations will exceed $60,000,000, and 

 that on an undervaluation, because the duty now is 

 exclusively ad valorem, which has unquestionably 

 resulted in the importation of goods that on a fail- 

 basis of valuation would come, nearer to $90,000,000. 

 Now, we shall get from the imposition of the pro- 

 posed duty on wool an increased revenue of $12,- 

 000,000, and we shall get at least $12,000,000 more 

 upon goods, making $24,000,000 increase of revenue 

 from these two sources; and if we obtain $15,000,- 

 000 from the horizontal increase on the other sched- 

 ules, that, added to the $24,000.000, will make $39,- 

 000,000. In addition to that, it is estimated that 

 there will come about $1,000,000 increase of revenue 

 in consequence of the transfer of certain lumber 

 from the free list to the protected list at a rate of 

 duty only 60 per cent, of that which was imposed 

 by the act of 1890. 



" So, Mr. Speaker, it is well-nigh certain that this 

 measure, if enacted into law, would give us addi- 

 tional revenue of not far from $40,000,000 during 

 the year following its enactment, and it is just this 

 $40.000.000 that we need to make our revenue equal 

 to or slightly more than our expenditures, to re- 

 store confidence and to give to the business of the 

 country the moral influence of a government that 

 is solvent, that is paying its bills from its revenue, 

 and that has a credit second to that of no govern- 

 ment upon the face of the earth." 



Mr. Crisp said in part: 



" Mr. Speaker, I shall occupy but little of the 

 time that has been assigned to this side for the dis- 

 cu-sion of this bill. I shall not attempt to follow 

 my friend from Maine along the devious path which 

 he has trodden. I shall not undertake to reply to 

 his first argument, that this is a bill purely for 

 revenue, and then to his last argument, that this is 

 a bill to protect the wool industry. Those incon- 

 sisiciir-ii^ answer each other. But, sir, I do desire 

 to call attention to certain facts which controvert 

 the position -i^mned by the gentleman. The gen- 

 tleman from Maine says that this extraordinary 



spectacle, this extraordinary haste, this extraordi- 

 nary bill, is all caused and all justified by a message 

 of the President of the United States. I suggest, 

 Mr. Speaker, that in making that statement the 

 gentleman from Maine does not practice his habit- 

 ual candor. If this bill is intended to be respon- 

 sive to any suggestion from the President of the 

 United States, then the action proposed ought to 

 be in line with the suggestion made. ,The excuse 

 the gentleman from Maine gives for the hurried 

 manner in which this bill is presented and proposed 

 to be rushed through is that there is a deficiency of 

 revenue, and that therefore the Government can not 

 live without some such legislation. Now, the Secre- 

 tary of the Treasury, in his report made to the 

 House the other day, says : 



"'The cash balance in the Treasury on the 1st 

 day of December, 1895, was $177,406,886.62, being 

 $98,072,420.30 in excess of the actual gold reserve 

 on that day, and $77,406.386.62 in excess of any 

 sum that it would be necessary to use for replenish- 

 ing that fund in case the Secretary should at any 

 time be able to exchange currency for gold. There 

 is, therefore, no reason to doubt the ability of the 

 Government to discharge all its current obligations 

 during the present fiscal year and have a large cash 

 balance at its close without imposing additional 

 taxation in any form upon the people.' 



" This great fiscal officer, charged with the duty 

 of making estimates and setting before us the con- 

 dition of the Treasury, says that there is absolutely 

 no necessity for imposing additional burdens in the 

 shape of taxation upon the people. But the gentle- 

 man from Maine cites what he calls a deficiency, 

 and claims that this demonstrates the necessity for 

 an immediate increase of revenue. 



" Mr. Speaker, that gentleman knows no man 

 knows better that there is in the Treasury to-day 

 over and beyond the gold reserve largely more free 

 money by three times over than any deficiency that 

 can occur during the fiscal year. It is not a ques- 

 tion, Mr. Speaker, of borrowing money to meet ex- 

 penditures the money is already borrowed : the 

 money is in the Treasury but it is a question 

 whether you will use an asset which you now have, 

 or whether you will run posthaste to impose addi- 

 tional burdens upon the people in order to pile up 

 money in the Treasury of the United States. 



" Now, let us understand this matter. There has 

 been a deficiency. Why ? What law caused it ? I 

 listened in vain to the gentleman from Maine to 

 hear some confession that the deficiency and the 

 withdrawal of gold began under what is known as 

 the McKinley law. Not one breath did we hear in- 

 dicating there had been any financial disturbance 

 under that celebrated law. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the 

 receipts under the McKinley law had fallen until 

 during the four months next preceding March 1, 

 1893, the expenditures exceeded the receipts by 

 $4,094,021.30. That wa,s before the inauguration 

 of the new Administration, and, of course, it was 

 years before the passage of what is known as the 

 Wilson tariff bill. 



" The first deficiency, therefore, we find arose 

 under what is known as the McKinley law. That 

 law was then peculiarly the pet of the Republican 

 party. In that day there was none on that side to 

 criticise or arraign the supremacy of the gentleman 

 whose name had been given to that bill. It was 

 the typical Republican idea of imposing taxation 

 that is, to reduce the receipts going into the Treas- 

 ury by increasing the receipts going into the pock- 

 ets of the protected manufacturer, to put at the 

 water's edge of our country a tax collector with 

 rates so prohibitory that no goods could come in in 

 competition with goods made at home, thus redu- 

 cing the revenue coining into the Treasury and thus 



