Repeal, Not Rebate, Wanted

REPEAL, NOT REBATE, WANTED

The following editorial from Wednesday's Chicago Record-Herald on the then proposed, but now accomplished, rebate of the duty on coal for one year is to the point. The action of Congress shows how grudgingly that body does anything in the interest of the consumer even in times of the most grinding necessity. Congress is so accustomed to legislating in the interest of the dollar instead of the man did in a time like the present it seems to be unable to give the suffering people more than half a loaf.

Says the Record-Herald:

The ways and means committee of the house has trained a popgun up on the coal corporations and brought the agitation against them to an anticlimax by proposing rebates on coal imports for one year instead of abolition of the tariff. The procedure proves how strongly lodged the trusts are in Congress. That body is getting more and more to represent what are called interests rather than the people; is hastening the country to toward a crisis which must settle the question whether legislation also is among the monopolies to be enjoyed by corporate wealth.

As to this subject of the coal tariff, It is clear that there has been a complete forfeiture of any right to consideration by the particular interests involved. Anthracite has long been out of the protected list before the Dignley law was passed, and supporters of that law have claimed that it got in by fraud. It is also said by the same class of people that it needs no protection, and that it was put in merely for trading purposes. In any case it does not deserve protection, so that there is no sufficient excuse for continuing the duty, which should have been repealed with exemplary suddenness in view of the president's recommendation and the developments of the last year.

Soft coal would meet a more direct competition from abroad, but the system of rebates is an indirect and unpopular subterfuge. In the present condition of affairs unhampered importation is certainly advisable. Coal is now selling in New England, which is the nearest to the Canadian supply of all our territory, add price is more than double the ordinary, while the tariff is but $0.67 a ton. Competition could do no more possible injury to the “interest” for some time to come, and it is exceedingly doubtful if the duty should be permanently retained anyway, because of the much superior interest of the American consumer.