Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 April 1892 — EXTRACTS FROM MR. McMILLI’S GREAT PLEA FOR LESS TAXATION. [ARTICLE]

EXTRACTS FROM MR. McMILLI’S GREAT PLEA FOR LESS TAXATION.

What he said about “Shoddy’” the substitute for wool; reduction of taxation, and the sugar tax; SHODDY. “Mr. Chairman, this high tax on wool Las foroed the use of vast quantities of substitutes for wool—shoddy, mungo and other adulterants used in the manufacture of woolen goods. This is strongly put in the report, from which I extraot the following: “ 'From this statement it will appear that the number of establishments has increased from 73 in 1880 to 94 in 1890; and the value of the produot has increased from $4,900,000 to $9,200,000, the inorease being nearly 88 per cent. It appears from Mr. North’s table that the shoddy used in mauufactuies of woolen goods of all descriptions in the census year of 1890 amounted to 61,026.261 pounds. ‘According to the statement furnished your committee by the burea . of statistics of the Treasury Department, printed in the appendix to this report (Appendix D), there were produced in the United States in the year 1890 276,000,000 pounds of wool.

“ ’These figures represent the wool in the grease, and in reducing it to scoured wool there will be a loss of G 63 per cunt., winch shows that the scoured wool produced in that year amounted to only 92,000,000 pounds. Thus it appears that the Bhoddy consumed in the United States in the census year of 1890 had a cloth-pro-ducing power equal to 07 per cent, of all the wool which was produced in the United States for that year; in other words, that the scoured wool produced amounted to 92,000,000 pounds, while the suoddy consumed amounted to 61,626,261 pounds. “ ‘The whole number of sheep in the United States for the census year 1890 was 44,336,072; the lieeces amounted to 276,000,000 pounds. These fleeces produced 92,000,000 pounds of scoured wool, while the ninety-four establishments engaged in manufacturing shod- .y produced a wool product equal to that of 20,605,168 sheep.'

“Sir, it will thus be seen that the use of substitutes for wool, such us shoddy, mungo, waste and adulterants supplanted in the United Statos, to say nothing of the shoddy imported from abroad, more than twenty-nme and a half millions of sheep when we have only 44,000,000. According to the report, which will be found in the appendix, it is seen that these substitutes have taken the place of the fleeces of 29,000,000 sheep, 01 about two-third* as many as there are in the whole United States.

“Mr. Chairman, the first quarter of a centnry of the history of the Government theie was no duty imposed on wool. The first duties that were imposed were insignificant as compared with those now in existence. The pretense that a high duty would increase the number of sheep in the older States has not been verified. The value of wool of similar quality has varied very little in the markets of Boston and London Bince that duty was imposed, occasionally a little higher abroad, sometimes a little higher ic this country, but the average dvantage of one country over tiie other has not been one-fifth of the duty imposed by our Government, which proves conclusively that, whilst the cost to the consumer has been increased by the duty, and the possibilities of the manufacturer* hav« been restricted, both in market and quantity, the sheep husbandmen have derived no substantial benefit. “Mr. Jefferson, In a letter from Monticello, written to Kosciusko June 28, 1812, says: “ ‘Onr manufacturers are now very nearly on a footing with those of England.— She has not a single improvement which we no not possess, and many of them better adapted by ourselves to our ordinary use. * * * “ ‘We consider a sheep for every person as sufficient for their woolen clothing, and this state and all to tbe north have fully that, and those to the south and west will soon be up to it. In other articles we are equally advanced.’ * * * “A sheep for every inhabitant of Virginia and the North in 1812, with free wool; and there is not a lamb, nor half a sheep to ievery individual in 1891, with taxed wool. “Mr. Chairman, thi* was the condition when the war of 1812 was raging, when wool was free, and when the average rate of duty was 18 per cent.

REDUCTION OF TAXATION. “Mr. Chairman, what 's the McKinley bill? What is the nature of that measure which promised so much relief to the laboring man and has given so little?— Wherein does it differ from other tariff measures? Sir, it imposes the most enormous and outrageous jates of duty ever imposed in the history of this Government. The tasiff rates levied at the dose of the Revolutionary war when, if ever, we were in imminent danger of having our infant industries overwhelmed by those long established in England and other old countries, were not one-sixth of those imposed by the piesent law. Those levied to carry on the war with Great Britain in 1812, when this capital city had its baptism of fire, were notone-third so great. They are about two and one-half times greater than the rates imposed to carry on the Mexican war, and 60 per oent. higher than the rates imposed to carry on our recent civil war with 2,000,000 of men in the field.” Mr. Stockdale—Two and a half m\l lions. Mr. McMillin—Two and a half Millions, as my friend says. “Mr. Chairman, when the Morrill tariff was imposed to carry on om great civil war and maintain more than two millions of men in the field it was said by the author of the bill and those who favored it that the high rates w*re only temporary and would be redneed with the return of peace. Sir, about one-third of a century has now elapsed, more than two-thirds of the expenses incurred have been paid, every legitimate excuse for th» inorease of rates has disappeared, and yet not only has there been no reduction in tariff rates, but they have been vastly increased. The aet of 1883 imposed an averag rate of 45 per cent. The two acts of 1890 w ich supplanted it have imposed an ave- age of nearly 60 per cent. This is not the worst. The rates of duty were placed lower by that act on the luxuries thai' on the necsssariesof life. There was less increase on the finer goods than on the coarser,— There was less increase on silks than on woolen goods; less on jewelry than on cutlery; less on diamonds than on table knives; less on champagne than on linens. “On many of the articles upon which I the duty w; s almost prohibitory before, , it was made still higher seeming’y for no other purpose than to enable those now engaged in operations here to form pools and organize 'combines.' I remember well when Jhe bill was under discussion in the Hquso, a Republican member from , Illii 01, Mr. Hopkins, rose end pointing

to the gallery said: ‘I see a man in the gallery who will go from there worth millions more than he is now if my amend ment is not adopted. He is in a trust which will make millions if this bill is passed.’ His amendment was not adopted, the bill did pass. This is only an illustration of the hundreds of jobs and schemes whioh that bill in one way or another fostered ahd oarried.

THE SUGAR TAX. “ Sir the authors of the bill take much oredit to themselves for having placed eugar on the free list. They did, it is true, plaoe some and most of the grades of sugar on the free liot- But the finer grades are still taxed heavily for the benefit of the manufacturer and he ie left with more protection by that bill than by the rates imposed by the Mills bill. It is true that fifty-odd millions of dollars was taken off the sugar tax. But this was no free will offering, for the same measure provided for the payment of twelve millions to the producers of sngnr as bounties. Again, while the fifty-odd millions of tax was taken off sugar, inorease of duties amounting to about sixty-five millions was put on other tnings, and generally on the necessaries of life. “While protection was holding forth one hand with alleged benefits to tbe people they bad the other thrust d ep down in their pookets grasping the last dollar that extortionate greed could wickedly covet. They reduced the tax on the sugar schedule and raised the rates on every other schedule. They removed sugar tax whith yielded eight-ninths of its benefits to the Treasury and but one-ninth to the manufacturer, only to place manv millions more than the sugar tax on other things where but one-sou th of the law’s exactions went into the Treasury and threefourths went info the private coffers of favored manufacturers. Mr. Chairman, when we refleot that the ten or twelve millions paid in bounties on silks, sugars, etc., has to be raised by the imposition of taxes on other things whore three-fourths go into the manufao 1 urer’s pocket and only one-fourth into the Treasury, it will be seen instead of the poople gutting Bixt.v millions of relief by ibis ohunge of taxes they have hardly obtained ten millions of let benefit. The sugar planters did not demand this ohange. They 'protested against it, and were w illing to submit the reduction required of others.

“Kir, the whole bill was characterized by a cousciencel ss favoritism for the few and a ineroiless oppression for the many, in the consideration of the bill the manufacturer alone was f vored. The consumer was never considered, or if ever considered at all It was only to ascertain how muoh more taxes he could endure. The greed of the seller and not the need of the buyer was the measure of the rate of duty. The uncalled for and unconscionable duty differs trom larceny in that it is openly taken. It differs in highway roboery in having the sanction of law.— Mr. Chairman, for the first time in the history of the country those who passed the law supported it with the avowed purpose of preventing imports and destroying revenue. In all other laws ever passed on this object at least those having the measure in charge had tfie sense of official propriety to profess that the law was invoked to raise revenue. “The wall of fire had been threatened on the stump and sometimes flamboyantly proclaimed from the hu tin s. Bui at last tbe mask was drop' ed in this hall.— The exigencies of thj preceding campaign had required a vast amount of money to oarry the elections. It was raised by rousing the apprehensions of some and promising benefits to others. The of that campaign were put into statutory form. “Mr. Chairman, it was a reduction of taxation the people demanded, expected and deserved, and not an increase. The promises made when the war rates of duty were imposed, that they were temporary, had not been forgotten, and the people relied on it. As far back as 1883 the tar- j iff ermmission, composed exclusively ol : protectionists, part of them being manu- I factuiers, after having taken testimony all j over tbe oonntry, reported to Congress that th > people were entitled to a reduction i of from, 20 to 25 per ceut., and rec in- j mended it. They teported that the manufacturers could flourish under such a reduction, ana should be required to submit to it.

“But this recommendation was overridden by Congress, and an increased rate imposed by the law of that year. Even the war rates imposed did not satisfy the manufacturers. This, inorease did not satisfy them. They demanded more land never stepped Hntil they got it. When the wot tariff was imposed, an internal tax was placed on manufactured produci s, and a corresponding additional import duty put upon competing commodities ooming from abroad, to compensate the manufacturer for what he was thus required to pay. This manufacturer’s tax was repealed, but the compensating duty retained. By this he got a net benefit of 10 per cent. Mr. Chairman,|every class, except those wl.o need it worst, has been benefited by the various laws passed by our opponents on the su ject of taxation since 1865.

D;. Raber, Dentist, of Valparaiso, will be at the Makeever House, Saturday, April 2d, pre~ 1 ared to extract teeth without pain and without putting the pa. tient to sleep. Best teeth $8 per set. Satisfaction guaranteed. Premature gray whiskers sho’d be colored t urevent the appearance of age, and Buckingham’s Dye is by far the best preparation to do it.

Mr. ftettleton, a high republican official in the U. 8. treasury department recently filed with the secretary the following charges against our own Billy Owev: 1. That Mr. Owen, superiDtende t of immigration, is unfit and incompetent to perform the duties of his office. 2. That he is untrustworthy in the perfoimnnce of his official duties. 3. That he ha» circulated malicious slanders against his superior officer in the department. 4. That his ideas of official regularity and integrity are reckless and a source of serious risk to the public funds partially within his control 5. That M”. Owen sent a letter to John B. Weber, United States commissioner of immigration at New York, authoriaiug him to accept certain bids he had received

for supplies, reciting the bids by name and amounts, which amounts aggregated $1,619, or more than 150[per c. nt in exc<\-s of the ag gregateof c-528,06 asked for by the commissioner at New York. 6. That Mr. Owen, on or about J-m. 1, 1892, joined Prank H. Burned aid other persons in a persistent attempt 10 collect the mofcey upon a false and fijtitious vouoher tor sll7 for the alleged service of a person not in the employ of the government, and who, to Mr. Owen’s previous knowledge, had not rendered the service for which the voucher was presented. Mr Nettleton’s letter concluded with the following statements: Ever since Mr. Owen resumed his office in J uly, 1891,1 have been compelled, as his superior officer, to call his attention very frequently to the biunders and irregularities for which be was directly res sponsible. These blunders and irregularities, permitted to go unchecked, wuuM have brought the department in'o ridicule, entangled the government in annoying complications, and in certain instances, as therein shown, would have resulted in the wrong abstraction of money from the public treasury. Before th > committee Nettleton spoke of errors and blunders on Owen’s part, which he at first attributed to newness in office, but when they continued he saw it was incompetency. In letters written by Mr. Owe”, said the witness, there were faults of English grammar which had to be corrected before the letters went out of the office. * * *

Billy’s prophecy was reversed, and the above would indicate that sine his political interment he has been engaged in doing some pretty tall scratching. “Gentle Sprin"” loses many of its terrors when the system ; s fortified by the use of Ayer’s Sarsaparilla. With multitudes, this wonderful tonic-alterative has long superseded all other spring medicines, bang everywnere recommended tiy physicians.