Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 February 1882 — PLATE GLASS AND THE TARIFF [ARTICLE]

PLATE GLASS AND THE TARIFF

Tbb Texas Republicans hope to elect three members of Congress thiyear, “if they get the props- encouragement from Washington. J. V. W. Kirk makes Wedding Dress es a specialty. The New York Tribune warns t' e Stalwarts that they must not “ hr' v mud at Garfield’s grave,” it th- y du there will be "trouble.” We hot e that another assassination is not contemplated. J. V.W. Kirk ie bound to sell Dr< e Goods cheaper than ever before. For the year HBl. the results ot tariff taxation and the distiibntion of its proceeds may be tabulated thus. R ment * * 193.*».85K 87 “ I,n ’ ,faCtUr J. 1,350,000,000 Co J. V.W. Kirk takes great pleasure in getting any thing a lady wants in (he line of Dress Trimmings

The world does move. : fter all, and stronger proof that it does sc could not well be had than that sup plied yesterday in the Senate of the United States, when the venerable Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Dawes, took the floor to urge uj on Congress the merits of civil service reform. It was not only that he did it, but there was something ab - solutely inspiring in the way he did iu—Philadelphia Telegraph (Rep.) If you want a pair of Kid Glove.-» call on J. V. W Kirk. Indianapolis Sentin d: Peter Heimann, a compositor well-known it this city, was vaccinated about six weeks ago. Three weeks afterward? his arm had become so swollen as to unfit him for work,and his fellow em, ploys in the Times office took up a collection and sent hitn to his koine at Mattoon Illinois Word has beta received that mortification has set in, making the amputation of his arm necessary, and it is feared it may spread and perhaps be the cause of his death. J. V. W. Kirk has just returned from Chicago with a nice line of samples. The manufacturers of Glass have deeided to suspend operations dur lug July and August next Although tl.e production of window glass the past year has been large—amounting t< nearly 2.250,000 boxes valued ar about s6,ooo,ooo—the consumptive demai d has taken it all, and it is thought that the opening of the spring trade will justify an advance in price?. It may be well to state that window glass pays a duty, as follows: 10x15. 59 per cent.. 16x24, 71 per cent.; 24x80, 78 per cent, and above 24x30 78 pei cent. Perhaps the monopolists want a little more protection. Choice lemons, delicious. oranges figs, nuts, and pure, clean, fresh candies, at the postoffiee lobby. Says the Protected Manufacturer: “Why don’t we maufacturers pay our proportion with the rest? The hatter pays his twenty-five per cent, tu the shoemaker, the shoemaker pays his twenty five per cent, to the hat ter, and out of the increased prices we are all able to pay the farmer more, and so it goes; everybody ges higher profits, and it is a good thing all around I”

Let us simplify. Suppose we have a community consisting of a hatter, a shoemaker and a farmer. The farmr r hoes his own row, asking odds of no body; but the hatter and shoemaker demand a bonus of SSO a year eaci • How on the Protection plan, will they get it? It would be too barefaced a steal to levy a tax on the farmei alone. They will not do that. Av oiding the appearance of unjust dis crimination, they will put a tax on ail consumers of hats andshoes; they will make all purchasers of hats and shoes contribute alike to the Protec tion fund. Very fair, this locks; but mark the singular result: The hatter pays SSO a year to fostei the hat industry, and SSO a year to foster the shoe industry; total SIOO He receives—nothing. His industry is not “fostered”. There it is in a nut-shell. The Pio teetion tax is laid on all alike, Bui when the books are balanced, the hat ier and shoemaker are in SSO eaeb, and the farmer is out SIOO. Who 1? it that pays for Protection?—Gbaham McAdam.

Keystone Stationery is most economical. Examine it. For sale only at the postoffice lobby.

The Boston Post of the 14th inst, contains the article on “Plate Glass," In which reference is made to tb< plate glass manufactory of the Messrs De Pauw, at New Albany, in thi--State. The Post also refers to the actionof the Messrs. De Pauw in the fall of 1880, when they abandoned the Democratic party and went boots and baggage into the Republican ranks, and this was done because the Messrs. De Pauw believed that plate glass ought to be protected by a tariff tax of 112 per cent, and because thej believed that the Democratic party favored the reduction of the tax to a more reasonable amount. In the discussion of the plate glass question the Post introduces some statements compiled by the Lewiston Gazetts which the Post assumes tobe.correci as the Gazette is said to be a “most reliable newspaper," The Gazette's presentation of the case is as follows: Tn 1880 we paid $485,512 on 890,741 of imported plate giars, or at ti e

rate of nearly U 2 per cent. Daring thebaine year.tbe total product io the United States of plate glassamounted in value to $868,300. The total value of plate glass consumed in 1880 was, therefore: fSseef piste slaw Imported Duty Dsiu on it.<•• ..•»••••• Plate daw made in the United States, valued??.- w"-*” Total sl,M*.4M As the duty on the foreign glass amounts to nearly 112 per cent., and as in spite of this enormous duty we still importedß39o,oo9 of this product, it natuxly follows that the people pay more than double price for the plate glass they use, thanks to nsine pr • tectite tariff. Is there any need for this monstrous tax of 112 per cent in view of the fact tl at our su*plus re venue reaches over $109,000 000 annually ? plate glass win« ownwrea necessity, as we 1 as ora.ent They are put into our stores, not merely to make thun attractive, but they are found necessary to secure light and comfort to the employes of the esteb lisbmentj whose duty it is to make the best use of the daylight, from early morning to sunset. Thanks to the tariff therefore, in fitting up stores, they have had to pay 112 percent extra cost fur the use to the fullest extent of God Almighty’s greatest gift to this world daylight. England almost i ebelled against a window tax, but all America submits to it Now comes another point: What is the reason of this enormous tax on an article of necessity ? Simply »o protect six establishments in all the United States; in fact we may say only three establishments, as the three in Kentucky and Massachu setts produce only $49,335. Now let us show the result of the two largest plate glass manufactories in Indian*’, produced $642,000 worth of plate glass. They employed the following tabor; Male* over sixteen years old 419 Female* over fifteen year* old Boy* under sixteen year* old 35 Girl* under fifteen year* old 6 Total M, The wages paid these 513 employe s amounted to *l6O 850, which gives an ave age of a fraction less than $313,55 per ann tin. or about $6 week wages. Buch are the wages received by the Indiana em ployes in making American plate glass which requires protection of 112 per cent. Let us sum up this projection swindle still further. The whole plate glass industry of the United States employed the following hands and paid the following wages in 1880: Male* over Hlxteen yours old B£2 Female* over fifteen year* old 55 Boys under sixteen year* old 66 Girls under fifteen year* old 13 Total 956

The total wages paid these employes in 1880 amounted to $293,253, showing an average of less than $6 per week. Now we have shown that nur consumption of plate glass in 1880 was $1,696,458. Of this sum $896,000 have been paid by consum ers of plate glass to the Treasury and to protection. Inasmuch as our financial situation does not require this duty, would it not have been wiser for the consumers of plate glass to have paid the $283,523 wages of a subsidy to the plate glass makers ai d import plate glass free? this would save the country $600,000 thrown out the business in a useless tax, and, what is still more important.it would have allowed us that privilege of a free and unbiased vote in Indiana. But enormous as this tax on plate glass is, tne tax on common window glass is a still greater hardship. In 1880 we consumed the following amount of window glass: Imported cost price .$1,427,073 Duty paid oa it 979,738 Value of window gla** made at home... 5,047,21" Total value $7,454,124 As is seen from the above table, the average duty was about 68 per centum. This country, therefore, pays a tax of not less than $3,000,000 per year for the luxury of using common window glass. And yet we look with horror back on the Tories of England, who taxed the Englishmen’s daylight in order to pay the National debt. Surely our tariff system is nothing more nor less tnan a National “kleptomania and a National disgrace.' Here we have figures of startling significance, well calculated to make people open their eyes. It will be ob served that the duty on the imported plate glass for 1880 amounted to $45,000 more than its value, as fol-, lows: Value of the imported article $390,741; duty, s436,sl2—excess of duty over value, $45,000. Here then we have it that plate glass imported to the value of $390,741, duty added cost the consumers $827,203. A more flagrant outrage could scarcely be imagined, but bad as it is, it is not one half of the stupendous iniquity. The duty of 112 per cent, on the imported article enabled home manufacturers to add 112 per cent, to the value of their product. Let us see how it worked. The value of the American product was $868,305, increased value 112 per oe t amounts to $972,501; total value, duty added, $1,840,806. Recapitulating, we have the startling fact that plate glass, imported and domestic, to the value of $1,259,046, is made to cost the consumers by the operation of the tariff $2,668,059, tabulated as follows:

Value of imported plate glass for the year 15M5890,741 Duty added, 112 percent43f,sl2 $ 137,253 Value of home manufactures •or 18 0 868,30 ft Duty added, 112 per cent 981,M1 1.840,806 Total $2,668,059 It will be still further observed in this plate glass business that the to tai amount paid lor wages by mapufacturers in the United States for the year 1880 amounted to the sum of $293,258, while the tariff of 111 per cent, put the sum of $972,501 into the pockets of the manufacturers, paying the entire sum for wages and giving the monopolists a bonus of $679,248, Assuming that the American manufacturers are able to make—having almost complete control of the mar ket -a profit of 30 per cent., we have the following exhibit: Product in 1880, $868,806; 30 per cent. profit $260,041 Profit from tariff duty of 112 per cent. 972,801 Total profit $1,232,540 Deduct wages 293,263 Actual profit ever and above wages $ 939,287 Prudent men in all parties agree that a tariff that taxes consumers to the extent of the foregoing exhibit ought to be repealed and something less akin to robbery substituted, and such will be the result when the peo

p e comprehend the fact that the present tariff is a bundle of jobs, rings and swindles for the benefit of monopolists who, by the use of money are now able to shape the legislation of Congress. Wednesday last was the 150th anniversary of the birth of Washington—“ The Father of his Country"— Patriot, Soldier and Statesman — “First in Peace, First in Wai, and First In the Hearts of his Countrymen. Ha was no third termer no “Stalwart,” in the acceptation of the term at the present day. He did not accent pres--0 .tf>,'sufficient in number and value to make him a wealthy man. He did not propose - nor did he insist that he be retired on a pension, a la Grant: He retired from his public duties to the peaceful shades of bis beloved Mount Vernon—accepting nothing for hie great services, asking ouly that the people cherish, and watch with jealous car© the liberties of the Republic.

Notwitbstandii g General Fitz John Porter was mad© the sufferer that guilty inefficients might go free, and the blunders of Stanton, Halleck et al, might be covered up, and it has been so pronounced.—Notwithstanding Grant admits that he failed to do hitn justice when he had the pow er—nothing has yet been done in that direction by the “Stalwart” adminis- • ration, It is very evident that nothin is intended to be done unless Grant is placed on the retired list and pen siuned the remainder of his days.— We trust Grant will be permitted to remain where he is. Placed in command to be the tool of the Stantons" the Thad. Stevenses, and other extremists, to conduct the war with a view to perpetuate radicalism and without reference to the Union,—at a time when the rebels were badly crippled in men and resorces—in fact the backbone broken by those who had preceded him—his own armies filled to overflowing.—There are f ew who recognize any great deeds that he ac complished. The 306 following stand by him only for the crumbs, in the event of their success, that would be at his disposal. The friends of Gen. Porter can afford to wait, rather than pension Grant, to secure his restora tion. His laurels are untarnished notwithstanding the efforts of pre tended loyal men to blast them, and in time, ere long, he will be righted Wait!