Democratic Sentinel, Volume 17, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 May 1893 — DENOUNCE THE BILL. [ARTICLE]

DENOUNCE THE BILL.

NBW TARIFF MEASURE MEETS % WITH OPPOSITION. Manufacturers Condemn It Because Their Bower to Bob the People Would Be Lessened Twenty-live Per Cent. More than is Necessary. Why They Object. The Reform Club’s tariff bill was drawn ud by eulightened, unselfish, and disinterested men —men who are anxious to see their country prosper. The worst that the protectionists can say of them is that they are “theorists and hobby-riders.” They propose a bill which, as compared with the present tariff, would be justice itself; yet even their bill does not do away with special privileges, for it leaves an average protection of 25 per cent to the favorite industries of McKinley. This is an offer to compromise with the manufacturers who now get an average of 50 per cent protection. The manufacturers manifest great anger at the proposition to split in two their rates of levying taxes upon the consumer. They dance and stamp and say all manner of foolish things.

If a band of pirates were in control of all of our ports and had become so strong that they could not only levy tribute upon the great bulk of ,our imports but could dictate legislation so that they would collect from the people 50 per cent, of the selling value of clothing, and of some kinds of foods, furniture, utensils, implements, etc; then, if they had held this special privilege for thirty years, we could imagine how red in the face they would get and how they would storm and curse at the proposition to break down their industry by allowing them to take only half as much plunder as formerly. It is not strange, then, that the manufacturers who have enjoyed similar privileges should rave at the Reform Club bill as they do in their organ, the American Economist. The issue of April 21 contains letters from fifteen manufacturers on the effect of the proposed measure.

“It would necessitate a reduction of at least 50 per cent, in wages paid in my industry,” says the proprietor of the Riverside knitting mill. “It would blot out the fine kid glove business entirely in this country,” say Dempster & Place, glove manufacturers. “Would cripple our industry seriously,” say Pratt, Read & Co., ivory cutters. “There would be no wages paid here by us, for we wguld have no business,” says Jas. Lindsley, manufacturer of lime and cement. “A soup-house incubator,” is what E. A. Hartshorn, flax, hemp anl jute spinner, calls the bill. “It would certainly wipe out our industry, unless our operatives would submit to a reduction in their wages of at least 50 per cent.,” say the British Hosiery Co. “There would be no wages paid, as we would wind up the business,” says the Southington Cutlery Company. “We would cease to be manufacturers,” say W. C. Fayerweather, manufacturer of iron and steel bridges. “It would ruin my business,” says S. B. Yrooman, proprietor of a planing mill. To tell the truth not all of the manufacturers belong to the pirate class, though piracy has become so elevated that it has become quite the fashion for manufacturers to claim membership. Planing mills would continue to turn; knitting mills and spinning machines to revolve; hammers, chisels and saws to pound and cut; and machinery to run at even greater speed than formerly. It is true that in some branches of manufacture some departments might have to cease; but the increased work in the other departments, due to cheaper raw materials and to the greater demand for goods at lower prices, would more than off-set the loss to the wage-earner, though it might not do so for the manufacturer.

The one strange feature of this whole business is that it should, apparently, never occur to the American Economist to consult any but these piratical manufacturers. In its opiniob, the Beform Club men who drafted the bill are theorists, and not “practicalbusiness men,” because they do not belong to the pirate band. For thirty years this band has told us what rates of duty would be good for it and the country. Shall we, now, think of fixing rates without consulting it? “Impossible, supremely ridiculous!" says the band’s chief mouth-piece.—Byron W. Holt. Twenty-five Per Cent*. More than Enough. Mr. A. H. Saxton is connected with Alfred Field & Co., hardware and cutlery, Chambers street, New York, and is a recognized authority on tariff matters in the hardware business. To a reporter of American Industries, on the Reform Club’s tariff bill, he said: It is well arranged, placing the highest rates on the things that can best stand them, and will leave no incentive for dishonest people to violate the law by false invoices. It may seem like a revolution tochange from the present tariff to that proposed by the Reform Club; but, as everybody now knows that the preseflJL, tariff is a barefaced robbery of the people, a revolution in rates must come sooner or later. If the Democratic party do not do their full duty, and do it at the earliest practicable moment, they will, in my judgment, lose the opportunity of a generation, and be false to the issue which revolutionized them into power. All this silly claim and talk about the necessity of protecting manufacturers is, and has always been, absolutely absurd. If put into proper wording it would mean, “robbery of the people for the benefit of the manufacturers.” There is no class of people in the States that need less aid from the Government than these same manufacturers, and it was demonstrated over and over again during the last tariff discussion that their claimed need of protection was false and insincere, and simply set up to increase the advantages they had already long enjoyed. As a single illustration of this the table cutlery manufacturers went to Washington and claimed that unless they could obtain a large advance over the then existing rate of 35 per cent., they must go to the wall and out of business, and this, in the face of the fact that table cutlery had been successfully made here, and was

growing and prosperous, under a 24 per cent, tariff. In order to show up the absurdity of their claim for any increased duties, I went to the trouble of finding out what I could duplicate some of their leading patterns for abroad, and this was the result: That if table cutlery was on the free list, I could not import, as it cost me as much in Sheffield as I paid for ft here, and then I had the freight and expenses besides. It was also proved by an annual statement of one of the table cutlery companies that they were earning large dividends under the old tariff, so that a duty of 25 per cent, on this article, as suggested by the Reform Club, Is not low enough to afford the Government much revenue, as only a few of the finest and most reputable goods can come in under it. Also, take pocket cutlery, which was made here and prospered under a tariff of 24 per cent. The manufacturers of these goods did not stop at any sort of misrepresentation to gain their object under the McKinley bill, and gave out the impression that it was for life or death if the increase asked for was granted or not. After they had succeeded, four of the companies representing an actual investment, according to their own statement before Congress, of #400,000, offered the same to the public for 11,600,000, or four times its actual value, and it is now interesting to hear the reasons they give in ‘ their prospectus as to why their plants are worth four times the original investment. I quote from their prospectus. “This business, with a record of over twenty years, has steadily grown into a profitable undertaking. The manufactured goods now equal the best foreign makes, and it is impossible now to turn the channel of trade back to the foreign manufacturers,” and “the business of these companies has steadily increased year by year—the profits for 1892 may be fairly estimated to be not less than sufficient to pay 8 per cent, on the ($800,000) preferred stock, and 15 per cent, on the ($800,000) common stock.” In other words they calculate to pay in dividends $184,000 per annum, on an-actual investment of $400,000. So that it seems that a tariff of 25 per cent, on pocket cutlery is ample protection, even if that side of it is considered.

I am in thorough accord with the Reform Club’s idea that all metal manufacturers should come under the uniform rate, and I am also in accord with their plan that all duties should be ad valorem. The plan of the complex duties of the McKinley bill was simply to hide ttffe enormity of the advances. They did not dare put a duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem on Qutlery, and 300 per cent, on pearl buttons, but they endeavored to hide these rates by a system of specific duties. How well they accomplished their object the last two elections amply demonstrate. The protection ostrich did not succeed in hiding himself by sticking his specific head into the sand. The intelligence of the people to find him out had not been counted on. The intelligence of the people was demonstrated, however, by the political revolution that followed. I am inclined to think that as a revenue measure the Reform Club’s suggestion will be worth the most careful consideration and study of our Washington statesmen. What we want is a simple, straightforward revenue tariff. There must be no coquetting with this interest or that interest. The day of paternalism must be in the past, and the responsibility is on the Democratic party to see to it that no laws are put on the records for the specific purpose of swindling one set of men for the benefit of another set. There were lots of rates in the old war tariff that had become absolutely ridiculous, except from a protective standpoint.

Increased Interest In Taxation. The increased interest, during the last few years, in the subject of taxation is simply marvelous. Previous to 1888 the subject was supposed to interest only theoretical men, professors, economists and editors, who, to maintain their dignity, felt called upon to discuss the subject occasionally. The occasional articles by Wells, George, Sumner, and others appeared, at least to the careless observer, to have been seed sowed in stony places. Cleveland’s bold message of 1887, compelling the two leading parties to make the tariff the leading issue, precipitated a discussion which has extended into other kinds of taxation and which is thickening and deepening during political campaigns, and between them, and which will not cease until radical reforms have occurred.

Instead of occasional campaign articles on the tariff question, prepared for partisan papers, interest in the subject is now so wide-spread that it pays nearly all the leading dailies to employ a tariff editor and to devote much space to the subject. Numerous press bureaus supply several columns a week of tariff matter to thousands of country papers which are trying to keep up with the times by supplying what is most demanded by their readers. Many of the legislatures of different States have devoted more time than usual to the subject of taxation and have appointed committees that have spent days listening to reformers of varying opinions and intelligence. The New York Daily World is now printing a series of articles, each several columns in length, on frauds in State and local taxation. Henry George’s paper, the Standard, did much to arouse discussion, but it was never self-supporting and ceased to exist more than a year ago. Its function is now performed by more than 100 self-supporting SingleTax papers. The truth is that there has never, since man began to cultivate fields, to build cities and to carry on an extensive trade, been any real reform in taxation. Under monarchies, where the masses had only to obey laws, it was not strange that the unjust and slipshod methods handed down from ancient times should have remained practically unchanged: but in a republic of enlightened citizens, it is astonishing that the great evils of unjust and unnecessary taxation have not long ago attracted sufficient attention to lead to what will now soon follow the complete overthrow of all kinds of indirect taxation.