Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 April 1891 — TRUSTS IN GLASSWARE. [ARTICLE]

TRUSTS IN GLASSWARE.

MANUFACTURERS COMBINING INTO TRUSTS. They Want All the Profits ot McKinloyisni—Highly Protected Already, McKiuGave Them Still Higher Pro tec : iou - Profit* of the Buslne**. A dispatch from Findlay, Ohio, has recently appeared in the papers as follows: “The Western Flint Bottle Association, comprising thirty-seven factories, at a meeting last night decided to close their works on .lune 1 instead of July 1 as heretofore. This is for the purpose of maintaining prices and compelling jobbers to come to the manufacturers’ terms." This is one of the trusts in the glass business. Another is the trust of the manufacturers of table glassware, which was started only a month or two ago, and which is now completing its organization. The McKinley law made heavy increases in the duties on glassware; and now the trusts are making haste to get all they can out of the advantage that McKinley has given them. The increase in the tariff duties from 40 per cent, to 80 per cent., not to mention the imposition of duties upon packages, which would add nearly 25 percent, more, was entirely uncalled for, since the old duties were practically prohibitive. Nevertheless this scale of duties upon glassware was insisted upon in the conference committee by Mr. McKinley. What his purpose was, backed as he was by the manufacturers in Ohio and western Pennsylvania, could not be surmised at the time. It is now however perfectly plain. Nine of the largest manufacturers of tableware in Ohio and Pennsylvania have united and applied for a charter under which a table glassware trust has been formed. Their purpose is to control the output of glass and raise the price. This combination was born in Mr. McKinley's district, and the more active manufacturers concerned were among those who contributed large sums to carry on his campaign last fall. Abundantly able to control the markets here even.with'glassware upon the free list and to export large quantities besides, they are not content with their present profits but aim under the McKinley tariff to charge as much for their goods hero as they can force consumers to pay. relying upon the foreign market to take the surplus, at reduced rates. They have secured what they wanted and will not hesitate to carry out their plans. One of these companies declared dividends of 60 per cent, in 1883, 60 per cent, in 1884, and about the same since. Another has declared nearly the same amount in the same time, and its stock has advanced over 200 per Scent, since 1885. Another has doubled its capital out of its earnings for the past three years. When carefully managed these works make not less than 25 per cent, profit each year. These figures show how reckless the McKlnleyltes were in raising duties where there is absolutely no necessity for an increase. Some of the flint and lime-glass makers went before McKinley’s committee and pretended that they were being driven out of the home market by German competition. These men had much to say about the low wages of German labor. It is a specimen case, showing how a lot of smart manufacturers can pull the wool over the eyes of m committee of protectionists, ready and willing to be deceived, and eager to find an excuse for giving the highest kind of protective duties. The increase of these duties is rendered all the more inexcusable in view of the great and rapid development of the glassware industry under tho old duties. That growth is reflected in the following figures: 1880. 1890. No. of establishment* 91 144 No, of furnace* 162 225 No. of pot* 1,559 2,624 Great as this development is, it is not so great as it would have been if the glass industry had the benefit of free raw materials; for the tariff on these is a great burden on this highly protected industry itself. Of the raw materials used soda, potash and lead are imported to a greater or less extent. If soda is used in the form of soda ash it is very largely imported, since a little only is made here. But salt cake is. often used as a substitute for soda ash, and of this the greater part is of domestic production. Soda ash pays %of a cent per pound duty or 26 per cent., and salt cake $1.25 per ton or over 28 percent. These duties affect the manufacturer of lime glassware only. Potash is largely-imported and is free of duty. The chief raw material, with the exception of sand In quantity, and the costliest of all used In the manufacture of glass is lead. One-third of the total weight of lead glass is lead. Since lead in the form in which it is used in glass manufacture is worth to-day from 6J4 to 9 cents per pound, at wholesale, it will be seen that in every pound of glass made with it there are from 2 to 3 cents, worth of lead. The duty on pig lead from which red lead and litharge are made is 2 cents per pound or 72 per cent. On red lead and the duty is 3 cents per pound, or 66 per cent, and 85 percent, respectively. The smelting and refining of lead in the United States is in the hands of a “trust,” which manages to keep up the price here above the foreign price by nearly the whole amount of duty. Red lead and litharge are the form in which glass manufacturers use lead, and these products are made by the manufacturers of white lead. It happens that the same trust controlling the production and price of pig lead is also In control of the production of white lead, red lead, and litharge. The excuse which they offer for the high prices which they charge the glass manufacturers is the high price of pig lead, which, however, Is not the price they pay for it, but the price they charge their competitors.. Nothing shows more clearly the handicap that is placed upon the manufacturers of lead glass in competition with foreigners in the markets of the world by these high duties than the sworn declaration of Mr. Macbeth, a large manufacturer and exporter of lead glass, who appeared before the Ways and Means Committee of the House early this year. Mr. Macbeth declared that for materials which cost 840 in Germany he had to pay here 879.63, or nearly 100 per cent more; and that upon the materials used in making 1,800 gross of lead chimneys, or one week’s production, the enhanced cost on account of the tariff on the materials used was 8650. Why should manufacturers and consumers be taxed in this way to support the lead trust. This tax restricts production and consumption, and handicaps our manufacturers in the export trade in which there is a great demand for American glassware. Must our exoort trade In glassware follow that of paints?

The high duties on lead In connection with those upon linseed oil, both of which products are In the control of trusts, have killed our once flourishing trade with foreign countries in paints Shall they be allowed to do the same with the only foreign trade which we have in all our glass industries —the export of glasswares?