OCR Text |
Show H SOME INTERESTING Bflflt In n recent nddrcss In Congross BflflflC Scnutor Ocorgo Sutherland of Utah, BJBB buvo tho following Interesting llguros Bflflj on tho present administration: Bflflf The first Important measure that BBBh wo had to deal with was the tariff Bflflj hill. Senators tamo from States vl- BBY tally interested In preserving a duty BBB upon sugar. Some of them, If I am BBY credibly Informed, had substantially BflflC premised their constituents that they BBV would stand for a duty upon sugar; BBM but whether they did or not, tho sen- BBY timcut of those communities wus In Bflflj fin or of a duty upon sugar. Tho Bflflj necoEEltle.i of the Stato demanded Bflflf that tho duty should ho preserved; Bflflj but, one by one, they yielded their Bflflj convictions and set nsldu tho needs fljH of their constituents In ardor to jpjHi fellow the command of tho President jflflt So tho duty upon sugar "as llrst ro- IB duced, and then, to tako elTcct at n BBWi lnto In Uio future, It wus put upon Bjr tho frco B Tho same thing may bo said of BJBJF' wool. I undortnko to say, without BBT doubt In my own mind as to tho iiiih triiui or tiio assertion, that n clear BBV. majority of both Houses of Congress J' bellowed that there should be some jpjpjt' duty retained both upon sugar and BBS upon wool. Why, Mr. President, It jflflj, 1 good Democratic doctrine and good BJBl ltepubllcau doctriuo to maintain du- BBY tics upon thoso two articles. Truo, jpjpj tho reasons for tho ma'ntcnanco of K "' duty nro different with tho two BJBEj pnrtles. alio Itepuh liau party bo- BBf ' lloes In maintaining them In order Bj to protect and foster thoso Industries. BJBji The Democratic party believes in Bflfli maintaining the duties as u means or BIB' raising reenuo. Tho Treasury of Bflfli the United Stntos Is in a depleted Bflflj condition. Wo hnvo been compelled Bflflf lo resort to extraordinary taxation. BBT J 'Wo hnvo provided for tho collection BBJi ! of an emergency ravenuo miscalled a Bflfl' 1 war roventio measure, because wo Bflfl ro not nt war; hut wo have been Bflfl compelled to pass an emergency Bflfli measure to collect by extraordinary Bflfl taxation $100,000,000 a )ear. Why, Bflfl ! . Mr. President, wo are losing half BIB that sum upon thoso two articles Bflfl' nlono. Wo woro collecting until tho BJBj; tree wool jlauso of tho Undorwood BflK ' bill went Into operation, $35,000,000 Bflfli n venr from the duties upon wool; Bflfl' wo woro collecting between $50,000,- BJB' 000 and $00,000,000 a year from tho BJBj- duties upon sugar. So, hy ono fl stroko of tho pen wo hnvo kept out H$ nr 'bo Treasury of tho United States Bj'l $35,000,000 In tho caso of wool, add HMtf nlrcady, hy tho reduction of 25 per HBJH cent of tho duty upon sugar $15,000,- flSfg 000 or $10,000,000 upon sugar; and (when tho frco sugar clauso goes Into final operation we sholl hnvo diverted j from tho Treasury of tho Unltod ' States an additional $45,000,000 from thoso causes alono. If tho I'nyno- BBTCjij Aldrlch hid had been In operation. BJBj n - It is perfectly plain that thoro would flj) hnvo been no lack of rovcuuo; there i1 would hao been no occasion for ro- B porting to cmergoncy taxation. Tho Bfrt I'resldont, In his message, as I recall Bflfl '' it, nsklng for tho passago of tho am- V', orgency tax law, Raid that wo had flj boon losing an enormous amount of pPJ 4 rovenuo on account of tho war In Rflfj Europe 1 Ho called attontton to tho fast that BJB in August, 1913, tho rovonuo of tho BJB , government from Impost duties BBJ nmountod to somothlng ovor $30,000,- Bfl ' 000 for that month, and ho Bald for BB tho month of August, which wns BB tho first month of tho war In Eur- BBJ l'o, the revenuos amounted to $19,- BB i 000,000. Ilonco thoro had been n BB, r ,0Bs to tho Treasury of tho Unltod H' i States of $11,000,OJO a month on nc- Bfl t count of tho war In Europe. Hf- i Mr I'rosldont, tho utntomont, I vblle, of cotirso, not bo Intended, Is B!' fntlroly disingenuous. Tho President fljjf ' j rnlll) to distinguish between posi hoc P! i . nd propter hoc. A moment's lnvcs- ligation of tho fact will show that ill's dlfloronco of $11,000,000 between tho reonu9 of August 1913, and tho .oen o of August, 1914, was not duo u tho war, but was duo to tho chango In tho laMff. Why, do I sny that? HocauBO In August of 1913, tho Pay no Aldrlch act, a protoctlvo law, was In operation; In August, 1914, tho Undorwood law, i freo trado measure, mea-sure, was In operation. Hut that Is not all. It you nro going go-ing to ascertain how much of tho loss of rccnuo was duo to tho war In ICuropo you must Instltuto n com parlson of the amounts rotelved during dur-ing different months when tho snmo law wus In operation, it proves nothing, no-thing, so fnr ns tho effect of tho war In concerned, to contrnst ono month when tho Pa no Aldrlch Act wns In operation and nnothor month when tho Underwood Act was In operation becauso to do so Is to Ignore tho effect ef-fect of tho change In tho two Inws. Now, let us Instltuto a comparison of that kind. In August, 1913, tho rovenuo was oer $30,000,000. In August, 1914, It was approximately $19,000,000, a difference of $11,000,000. Hut tho Underwood Act went Into operation In October, 1913, nnd If you will take tho llguros for the montliB following October, 1913 you will seo that tho nvorago amount of rovonuo received under tho Underwood Act up to August Au-gust 1, 1911, tho date of tho breaking out of tho wnr, was about $21,000,000 per month. So It Is perfectly apparent ap-parent that $9,000,000 of tho $11,000,-000 $11,000,-000 was -learly duo to a chango In tho tariff po Icy of the Unltod States and not to exceed $2,000,000 of It by any stretch of Imagination can he ascribed to tho hostilities In Europe. |