Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 May 1890 — TEARING THE TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

TEARING THE TARIFF.

JAMES HI WALKER'S VIEWS ON THE M’KINLKY BILE. The Well-Known Chicago Dry-Gooils Merchant Arraigns the Ohio Protection Tinker—Ho Says Kansas Is Opening Her Eyes to New Convictions. [From the Chicago Herald.] Janes H. Walker, the head of the big Chicago dry-goods house bearing his name, is the writer of the following interesting letter on the tariff. It was written in reply to Oapt. B. Rockwell, of Junction City, Kan., and its opening sentences tell in stronger language than words sometimes express themselves the story of how light is dawning upon Kansas and the West. Mr. Walker’s letter, or rather arraignment of the McKinley bill, is as follows: I am sorry to hear that the citizons of Kansas aro experiencing so little prosperity In their bnsinens affairs. Your conviction that the tariff is largely responsible fer their straitened condition is undoubtedly ccrrec';. The tariff is the question of the hour and is atsuiniug au Importance little suspected by the majority of the citizens of this country. It is scarcely within the scope of a letter to discuss the “pros and cons’’ of this subject. The venerablo sophistries of protectionists have been current so long that they are reputable through age, aud to the thoughtless have the ■pearance of truth. With touching credulity .je fanner has accepte l the highest possible tax as his greatest benefactor, and as the cause of our national prosperity. The jjrcsent tariff, originated for war purp<sts, was .loyally accepted by the people. Is > long as wheat remained above a dollar it was not severely felt, but with whoat at 78 cents in Ch iccgo it lias become a burden too intolerable to be norne, and the general conditions of the country aro crying aloud for relief. The farmer, knowing that the most bountiful crops which ever smiled upon this country are producing him no net profit, is casting alxiut for some alleviation. He fools that what he buys costs him too much, and, believing that his local merchants exact too largo a profit, is irganizing ••farmers’ alliances’’ in various parts of the country, hoping thereby to purchaso his supplies at a smaller percentage of profit than is required by the morchauls. This, however, will not, meet tho difficulty. The merchants’profits are none too large. The trouble is that, on account of being so heavily taxed, the goods originally cost the merchant too much. The farmer lias loug been led to believe that ihe present exirbitant tariff is for the benefit of American labor, in order to enable it to get high wages, and thereby create a good home market for the prodacts of the farm. A little investigation will prove to you that ihe operatives in tho mills of the protected industries get far lower wages than tho employes of the unprotected industries, and the highest scales of wages aud salary In this country aro in those trades, professions and occupa ions which are not protected in any manner whatover. The mercantile clerks of this country get the highest salaries iu tho world. The carpentorg, bricklayers, blacksmiths, locksmiths, and all the mechanics engaged in tile local industries which exist in our towns and villsges get far higher wages than operatives in the mills, and much higher than similar workers In any part of tho world. Our farmers are not protected in any sense of the t *rm. and yet the tarm laborer is hotter paid in this country than in any other Thes > facts stem to prove that high wages depend upon conditions rather than on a protective policy. Tho benefits of protec ion apply to very sow people In this country—probably not over 5 (o lb per cent, of the whole population. The o her 90, to 95 per cent, pay enormous taxes for the enrichment of that 5 to 10 per cent, and get nothing in return. Does your community know that tho tariff tax on dry goods, such as dress goo Is, farmor's satin, casbmoros, henritttas and shawls, will average 75 per cent, at the port of entry aud nearly 100 per cent, by the tirno they reach the •consumer? Does your community know that ilieroisa hill now being considered by Congress which is •called a revised tariff bill? Tho country at largo imagines that revision of ihe tariff means a reduction of the tariff. Tbs facts are that as far as dry goods ore concerne.i it means a still furthor increase of ihe tariff of from sto 12’« per cent. Does your community knvw that organized manufacturers are iu Wa hington at pro eni, urging the passage of this enormous additional tariff on top of a tariff incredibly large already? Does your community know that tho passage of this bill means that many dry goods when they reach tho consumer w ilt cost exactly double what they ought to cost, or double what thoy would cost if this tariff did not exist? Cotton warp dress goods pay a duty at tho port of entry of 70 per coni. Add the profits of the importer and retailer to the duty, say 25 p r • cent, more, and when they reach the c msimior the tax is equal to 87 per coni. The bill now in Congress pr poses to make this tax 102 percent, in place or 87 per cent., or 15 per cent. more. All wool ca-hmores now pay an average duty of 80 per cent. Add the importer’s and retailing profits, and when they reach the consumer the tax is 100 percent. The bill nt>w before Congress proposes to increase this duty about 10 per cent, more, making the tax 110 per cent. Fancy flannels for lawn tennis suits, wairts, aid shirts now pay a duty of 75 per cent. Wiih the importer’s and retailer’s profits added, 100 per cent. Congress proposes to increase the duty by 33 per cent., making the tariff on those goods i. 33 per cent. Silk-warp Henriettas now pay 50 per cent. It is now proposed to increase the duy to 00 per cent.

Woolen shawls now pay 80 per cent. It is now proposed to increase the duty to 90 or 100 per cent. Is it just for any dais of American citizens to receive a bounty of 10'J per cent for doing business when 9.1 per cant of our citizens receive no bounty at all? Does not this savor of discrimination in favor of a few against the many, and does it not look very much like class legislation in favor of a privileged minority? Our agriculturists sell what they produce in too markets of the world, and the prices which the foreign! r is willing to give for what we export makes the market prices for what is consumed at home. i Tin following are among the very largo lisof articles which are heavily taxed by the tariff and which are not produced in this, country, never have been produced, and possibly never will be produced, because climatic and other conditions prevent: Linen goods of all classes (except common crash) pay 31 per cent., and when they reach the consumer the tax is 45 per cent. The present bill before Congress proposes to increase this tax 5 per cent. more. Linen handkerchiefs, which are not and never have been produced in this country, pay 35 per cent, at the port of entry, or 44 per cent, when sold to the consumer. Wool veilings, which are not produced in this country, pay a tax of 5J percent., and in the consumer's hands this tax is increased to 05 per cent, by the intermediate profits as previously stated. Embroideries, which are not produced in this country to any appreciable extent, pay 40 per c mt. Add the importer's and the r etailer’s proSts, the tax reaches the enormous amount of So per cent. Tho same figures apply to cotton velvets and many other articles of general use among the masses. See the disadvantages of our farmers compared with those of foreign countries. Certain styles of common dress goods, which are impel tol largely into, this country, cost in EngJaud And France 13 cents per yard. The same gooda, with duty added, cost iu this country 25 cents per yard. The farmer in England and France gets for his wheat $1 a bushel. Our farmers west of the Missouri River obtain for' their wheat about 50 cents a bushel. In other words, our farmers pay almost twice as much for what they buy as the foreigner, and they only receive 5C per cent, as much for what they sell. Can it be possible that our Representatives and Senators in Congress are aware of these facts ? And if they are, will they dare to still further increase taxes to the extent proposed ? Previous to the meeting of the last Republican convention in June, 1883, the Cuicago Tribune, in a very powerful editorial a tide, as Hod the question: “Who will speak tor the iarmer?” The convention met. It oko for the politician and for the manufacturer, and for everybody but the fanner, and that great, patient, industrioas, loyal, docile class of our country w as left Enropresmted. In the November following, with pathetic docility the farmer voted according to his

old beliefs for a “protective” policy which is little short of robbery. Not many weeks ago a Congressional committee was appointed to take testimony concerning the workings of the present tariff. The accounts of ihit investigation seem to indicate that nobody was Invited to testify except the manufacturers. The merchants were not represented. The farmers were not represented. The great unprotected class who pay nearly all the taxes were unrepresented, and the beneficiaries of this.enormon* system of taxation represented thorn selves. The is seen in the present bill which la before' Congress. And what a sigbt it is SJelf-fnterest in the halls of the Capitol testifying in :lt« ofrn bohalf. 'The collectors of the taxes clam’•rods formore. The payers of the taxes apparently indifferent or ignorant of what Is going on. The present tariff having continued In operation nearly twenty-seven years, It is high time that our infant tudustriea should have placed themselves in. a position where they will require less rather tfiad more tariff, as they are no-w demanding, * Patents, which arc the reward of genius-and invehtlon,’ usually run out in seven years. The tariff has lasted twenty-seven years. No manufacturer is entitled to a bountyof 53, 60, 70, 8J or 100 j>er cent, for doing business. The manifest injustice of this discrimination in favor of any class of people is only too evident. The tariff should be reduced largely as so on as possible, and if tho people desire a policy of protection, it should lie of a moderate character, and not a guarantee of enormous profits to anybody who choosos to embark In the manufacturing enterprises. Surely the mas 3of the people are entitled to some consideration, and equal justice iu these matters should be meted out to all. A reduction of tariff would of course create a depreciation of values In certain directions ; bu f l ow much have farm lands depreciated withi tho last five years, owing to the depreciate value of crops? The amount is equal, probably, to moro than the entire valuo of all the manufacturing plants in this country. Yet that shrinkage nas been boruo uncomplainingly, and without any great disaster. The effect upon tho money market of the excessive taxes collected by the’ Government, under the tariff, ha i become a very serious matter. The Treasury is full to overflowing and has a very largo surplus. Meanwhile, money throughout tho councry is uncomfortably close, and business enterprises are retarded and jejpardized through a lack of available funds. In order to get this Treasury suri lus into circulation again in tho ordinary channels of trade, unusual aud unnatural methods are adopted, and in the exercise of thoso inothods the Secretary of the Treasury is invested with a discretionary power which is without parallel iu the history of finance. Some secretaries may exercise that power judiciously. Some day we may have a speculating secretary, whose interests will Ho in the direction of a very tizht money market and a consequent deprecia. ion of values. Such a possibdity should not oxist, and would not under a judicious tariff. Since writing the above I have received a sketch of tho proposed tariff bill now being considered by Congiess, and flud tho iucroased duties so much greater than anybody anticipated that I herewith append a comparative list of some principal items, being unwilling to do auy injustice to tho insatiate greed ot tho tariff “reviser.” Specific rates are computed ad valorem, for comparison: McKiuley bill Present proposed duty duty percent, percent. Cotton warn dress goods, costing less than 15c sq.yd.. 60 ©75 81 © 98 (goods costing 8d for 36-in.) from 15 to 2)c sq. yd 00 ©75 90 ©lO5 (goods costing 8d for 36-in.) from 20c upward 53 @B2 01 © 98 Farmer satins bolow 15c sq.yd 61 @OB 80 @9O (this class includes 3 of our grades) from 15 to 2Jcsq.yd. 01 008 95 ©IOO (this class includes 3 of our grades from above 20c sq. yard 71 @75 85 @ 90 Ceylon suitings (saucy flannels), valu ) bjtween U)c and 80c a pound 75 126 Woolen goods costing 0s a yard, 59-in 57 l i@7o 07 @B4 Reiver shawls 00 ©95 78 ©llß E glish spring shawls 50 03 l e s au snawls 48 58 Cashmere gloves 05 85 English cashmere hoso 02,’-'.@oß 77 1-j® 87 French all-w( ol goods costing 1 franc per meter 70 89 French all-wool goods costing 1 franc, 30-in. wide 85 110 French cashmeres 05 @87’.;84 @ll3 James H. Walkeb.