{"newspaper_name": "The Wilmingtonian, and Delaware advertiser.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 3814, "word_count": 706, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9708999991416931], "ccnet_perplexity": [1087.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
DTitISn mOQlHCdtlOn, ana tHc character OF
the frauds by which the provisions Of the
law Of 1924 are evaded.


Mr.. Wurts, ofPcnnsylvania, Of said he had
understood the object of the bill was to en-
force the due execution Of our revenue laws.


Mr.. Dwight, whose acquaintance with the
subject will scarcely be called in question,
used the following language:


"An inquiry has been made whether the
bill went further than to carry into effect
the provisions OF the law of 1924. 1t has al
ready been stated that such is the object of
the bill. it is to make the duty calculated
equal 10 SO 1-3 hcr cent. on all goods. If it
could be shown that. although the law of
1924 imposed duty of SO l.3 there was only
Is per cent collected, it would be evident
that there was AN evasion OF the law. We
ought to ask no more than the efficient ope-
ration of that law. The manufacturers ask
no more"


Mr.. Pcarce, of Rhode Island, having a
practical knowledge ofth subject, said,


at has been my purpose to show that the
provisions of this bill only secure to the man.
ufacturer of wool what, upon fair valua-
ton, he had right to expect from the act
of 1924"


1t will be seen then. from these extracts,



lens Bills in harmony with the opinions aud
statements OF some Of the prominent mem
bers who spoke ON the subject al the last ses-
sion. We find further confederation in
the remarks offered by some of the gentle
men who addressed the recent meeting of
growers and manufacturers of wool at Bos-
| ton.


Mr.. Abbot Laurence is reported to have
thus expressed himself


"Our tariff of duties was revised in 1924,
aud it was to be expected that Congress
would do for the woulen manufacturers
what they intended by that revision"


Mr.. z. Everett, in reference to the law Of
1924, is stated to have said


THAT law had wholly failed of its design.
ed effect in favor of the wolllen manufac
ture. This failure came in one of two ways
either the law was inadequate, or it hat
been defeated. The latter was the fact. 'rh,
! provisions Of the law OF 1894. so far as re
garded the encouragement of weollcn manu-
tacturcs. had been uotoriously and ruinousl
defeated"


We make the following additional quota
ton from Mr.. Evcrctt's remarks for tn,
purpose Of placing before cur readers th'
nature Of the notifications made Ly til,
British Parliament, which operated to de
feat the provisions Of the law Of 1894.


The operation OF the reduction of the du
ty on the raW materia! i'll Great Britain
was in truth an cifSct to reduce the dut,
OF 35 is per cent. laid by Congress on til,
importation of British woollcns, to IS 2-3 pi
cent. Nor was this all-Pai Lament ais,
reduced the dutes on olive oil, raprseet
and indigo about e-half which was in IF
feet, further reduction of the duty o'
woolens imported into the United States
Of per cent. The result was that the pro
tectiug duty Of So 1-3 per cent. laid by tn,
American Congress for the encouragement
of woollcn manufactures, had been reduce,
by the Acts of the British Parliament Il
10 2-3 per cent; and he would ask. wheth
er this was not the same in effect as il tn
Congress of the United States had repealed
the tariff of duties as far as regards thi
branch of industry, and established dut,
of 16 1-3 per cent. What the British manu-
facturer lost in the duty here he gained il
the smaller price Of the raw materials a
home; the British Parliament defeated TIL
: law by laying burden upon their farmer
: by taking off the duty on wool impoi ted
, We think we have thus satisfactorily res
q cued ourselves from the charge OF attempt
ing to deludc the public by sophistry Be
yond that, we are of opinion that we hav
t shown our views to be coincidcnt with thos
of the best information OH the subject, an,
to be such as reason seems to dictate, am
experience to approve.