Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 July 1891 — SHEET-IRON PROTECTED [ARTICLE]

SHEET-IRON PROTECTED

TRUE INWARDNESS OF THE TIN-PLATE DUTY. Xt Was Pat On to Help the Galvan ised Iron Men-What Senator Aldrich Said —Roofing Iron and Tin Plate Prices Compared—Our Tin Plate Kxperiment Too Costly. One of the main reasons why the McKinleyites put a high tariff on tin plate was to protect the American makers of galvanized iron for roofing purposes. Indeed, this purpose was boldly proclaimed by Senator Aldrich in his report on the Senate tariff bill in 1888. The Rhode Island Senator said in that report: “The free admission of iron and steel sheets •of all thicknesses and widths coated with tin or lead, would cause a substitution of imported tin or terne plates in most •cases for roofing and other building purposes, and for domestic uses, where galvanized or other sheet iron or steel Is now used.” The duty which Senator Aldrich was then defending by such frank humbug, amounted to 2.20 cents per pound, the duty which was finally put into effect in the McKinley law. The purpose of the McKinleyitos being to encourage the use of sheet iron for roofing instead of tin, which is better and cheaper, the higher duty and consequent higher price of tin has already begun to boom the sheetiron business. It is announced in the trade papers that the Garry Iron and Steel Rooung Company of Cleveland, Ohio, has “an exceedingly fine trade for this time of the year. ” They are said to have “a large number orders ahead,” and they are exporting their goods to Mexico, South America and other foreign countries. This latter fact makes it pertinent to ask why was it necessary to tax tin plates in order to help the roofing men when they able to export their products? If they were not able to hold the home market against foreign roofing tin, already taxed 1 cent a pound, or equal to 35 per cent, of its value, how can they export their rooiiing metal and sell it in foreign markets in competition with the same tin plates? Do they sell their products abroad at lower prices than to American consumers as other American manufacturers generally do? The demand of the sheet iron men to be protected from tin plates has a flood of light thrown upon it by comparing the prices of their product with those of tin plates for the past five years The avbrage wholesale price of galvanized sheet iron of the thickness known as •No. 27 wire gauge” since 1886 has been 5.87 cents per pound; while the average Import price of roofing tin, No. 28 wire gauge, for the same time has been only 3.19 cents. This is a difference of 2.68 cents a pound, while the McKinley duty on all kinds of tin plates is 2.20 cents a pound. These figures suggest the very pertinent question, How are our manufacturers going to make tin plates and sell them at lower than present foreign prices, according to the confident boast of the protectionists, when our homemade galvanized iron itself has been selling at prices so far above foreign prices? From these figures, too, it is clear that Mr. Niedringhaus’ partner in his St. Louis concern was about right when he saw that McKinley’s duty of 2.20 cents was not high enough, and that a duty of at least 4 cents was needed to establish a domestic tin-plate Industry. American consumers have already paid at least 415,000,000 extra for their tin plates since last fall by reason of the rise in prices caused by the McKinley •duty. This was the expensive result of the tin-plate duty during the six or eight months before it took effect. What will the consumers think of the added cost Imginning with the application of the new duty itself on July 1? Are we not paying rather dearly to protect our roof-ing-iron industry?