Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 February 1894 — STILL FOR REFORM. [ARTICLE]

STILL FOR REFORM.

* WORKINGMEN FAVOR PROPOSED TARIFF REDUCTION. Idle Mill-Workers Coerced bj Manufacturer* Into Sicatng Petitions Against the Wilson Bill—The People Want aa Income Tax—Congressional Idiots. Workingmen Still for Tariff Reform. That the elections of 1890 and 1892, and not the anti-Wilson bill petitions and postal cards, "suggested” and paid for by unselfish and disinterested manufacturers, expressed the real sentiments of our working population, is evident to all who are intimate with the facts in each case. Here are a few instances: Coerced by the manufacturers, many of the idle mill workers in Kensington (Philadelphia), the largest textile district in this country, signed a petition against the Wilson bill. That these petitions misrepresent the sentiments of the workers is seen from the fact that the manufacturers of Kensington cannot get more than 100 or 200 workers to attend tneir widely advertised meetings, while the Kensington Reform Club (tariff reform) can get more than 1,000 out to its meetings Those who are on the ground and know the conditions in the textile district in and around Providence, R. 1., report a similar reluctance on the part of the workers there to accept the ready-made conclusions of the manufacturers—except when their jobs are at stake. Similar reports come from Troy and Amsterdam, N. Y., in spite of the fact that more than two-thirds of the . population of these cities is alleged to have signed anti-Wilson bill petitions. The truth is that rebellion is rife in the ranks of the workers, and the combined power of all the capital of all the captains of industry is not sufficient to prevent serious outbreaks.

More evidence comes from Paterson, N. J. By deft manipulation of the silk and other workers there, the opinions of those who favored the Wilson bill were held in abeyance while reports were sent broadcast that the sentiment of the workers had turned and was dead against tariff reform. The ten-der-skinned representative from this Congressional district, like several others in New Jersey—Democrats, so called —got scared and climbed over on the other side of the fence from the Wilson bill, and began to swear back at it, thinking hjs constituents were applauding. It really looked bad for tariff reform in the vicinity of Paterson. A few Democrats, more bold than the others, concluded that they would try to hold a meeting if they could get an outsider to agree to sacrifice himself to the mob that would probably attempt to lynch any Cobden Club emissary who should present himself. Thomas G. Shearman, of Brooklyn, was willing to take his chances. He describes the meeting as one of the most successful he ever addressed. Between 2,000 and 3,000 people—mostly mill operatives—packed the theater and many stood for three hours listening and applauding the good points of Mr. Shearman's radical speech, and of his replies to the many questions asked. Their pent up tariff reform sentiments found vent in loud cheers, and the meeting was literally a “howling success.” Leading local “Democrats” who had remained “behind the scenes" during the meeting stepped out at its close to congratulate the speaker and express their surprise at the success of the meeting. All of which goes to show that the tariff reform back-sliders are amongst the machine politicians who fear the opposition of their wealthy constituents, or who are incapable of holding opinions, or of estimating opinions of their hard-working constituents, and not amongst the workers themselves. —B. W. H.

Tom Johnson’s Great Speech. Congressman Tom L. Johnson, of Ohio, is perhaps, the most radical free trader in Congress, and yet no speech of the session has been listened to by more members and more liberally applauded by all. Republicans applauded him for his logic, courage and frank non-partisan criticisms; Democrats for his clear presentation of sound economic and Democratic doctrine. Asa manufacturer of steel rails, Mr. Johnson produced indisputable evidence of a new steel rail trust or pool, which will have, in the Wilson bill, all of the protection it will care to use. We quote a part of Mr. Johnson’s speech referring to steel rails: Take steel rails, of which I happen to know something, as I am a manufacturer of steel rails. I appeal to the Democrats of the House to join me In putting steel rails on the free list. The present duty on steel rails Is $18.44 per ton. which Is estimated to he equivalent to 60.44 per cent, ad valorem. The committee have reduced this to 25 per cent. This seems like a great reduction.- But it Is only nominal, for 25 per cent, is all the steel rail trust want. It Is as good to them as 1,000 per cent., for It is practically a prohibitory duty. Steel can be made here as cheaply as anywhere else in the world, and would not now be imported, Bave In exceptional cases, even If there were no duty; while the tendency of Invention and Improvement is in favor of the United States as against Europe. The steel made into rails in this country is from native ore. What pig metal, billets, and blooms are Im-ported-are used entirely in other iron and steel manufactures. Now it costs less thpn $2 a ton to make steel rails from blooms, including straightening and punohing. On to-day’s market steel blooms are selling at less than sl7; steel rails should therefore not bring over sl9. Thev did fall to that price a few weeks ago, during a temporary break In the steel rail pool. But that pool was quickly reorganized, and the price of steel rails was put up and is now maintained at $24 a ton; so that by virtue of the duty which keeps out foreign rails, the pool is compelling the users of steel rails to pay them 25 per cent, more than a fair price. Mr. Dalzell.—Does the gentleman speak now from the attitude of a steel-rail manufacturer? Mr. Johnson of Ohio.—ldo. My mill makes about one-thirtieth of all that are produced in the United States. This new steel-rail pool is composed of seven manufacturers, headed by Carnegie, who absolutely control the product of more than onehalf of the rolled steel produced in the United States, and who have combined together to pay other large manufacturers heavy annual sums to close their workß, discha'ge their men, and make no steek Now, observe, the 25 per cent, duty of the committee's bill is just as good to the steel rail pool as the greater nominal duty of the existing law, and will enable the pool to keep the prioe up to the highest point that they deem safe. For, with a duty of 25 per cent. *d valorem, steel rails can not be Imported from Europe and sold In competition with the pool at $24 a ton. the highest price It now chooses to ask. So that the nominal reduction made by the committee is actually no reduction at aIL It will not add 1 cent to the income of the Government. It will not reduce 1 cent the price of steel to American users of steel rails and It will not diminish by 1 cent the profits of the Carnegie pool. Hence Carnegie's satisfaction, expressed the other day, when about to sail. It is true that if the proposed reduction had come earlier it would have been of some benefit to the American consumer, for the present duty of $18.44 a ton enabled the steel-rail pool up to a recent time to keep the price of steel rails higher still. But a greater internal competition, caused by reductions in the cost of production, has of itself compelled them to come down to $24 a ton, and a duty of 25 per cent, will enable them to maintain that price as snugly as does the McKinley law. Mr. Dalzell—ls the gentleman a party to the steel-rail trust? Mr. Johnson of Ohio—l am not: but whether lam or not would make no difference. Outside of this hall, as a steel manufacturer, I might be perfectly willing to enter a trust, but I will not defend trusts here. Congressional Idiots. Reports of Duns afad Bradstreets indicate et slight improvement in business and a gradual better tone indicating that the business scare is giving away to confidence. The actions of a lot of congressional idiots for some mere partisan advantage in delaying action

upon the tariff bill is only adding to the business confusion and uncertainty. The people of this country are fast becoming educated on political economy, and demagogues may rant and rave In their efforts to fool them, bus it is a waste of wind. The average laboring man knows that under the McKinley bill wages have been steadily decreasing, with strikes, lock out 6 and starvation following in its train. They have been compelled to take the manufacturers’ cut in wages or accept alms. They are not bound to accept either where they have organizations to sustain them. One good well managed labor organization is of more benefit to the laboring classes than all the tariff bills tney could pass for the next thirty years. In times like these organization is required and tolling classes cannot be cemented too closely. Organize by all means. Unite and protect yourselves. National Glass Budget. The Cry ot the Starrh Trust. The Oswego Times publishes the following under the head “Oswego Starch Factory”: Thoms* Kingston! said that the Wilson bill will be very detrimental to the starch business of this country, as It cuts the duty from 2 cents a pound to l cent a pound, and Y cent will not be enouirh to proteot the AmerU can Industry against European cheap labor. ' The official reports, which show the quantity and value of the products ex 4 ported from this country, are not pasted on every sign post, and the number of citizens who know what these reports say are small Consequently we presume that many worthy persons can be induced to believe that a reduction of the duty on starch from 2 cents to 1 a pound (or from 84.38 to 42.19 per cent.) will expose manufacturers in this county to the “ruinous" competition of “European cheap labor.” It is shown by the treasury reports that the exports and imports of starch in the last two years were as follows: Imports. Exports. Year. Pounds. Value. Pounds. Value. 1892.. .1,990,975 $51,806 20,081,027 $612,631 1898.. .3,766,606 89,249 21,938,466 707,093 It appears, then, that the Manufacture rs of starch in this country export more than 20,000,000 pounds a year. This starch they sell in all quarters of the globe, in open competition with the starch of other lands, and without the assistance of the duty of 84 per cent., which they need, they say, for defense against the foreign starch here at home. One-half of tne present duty, or 42 per cent., “will not be enough,” they assert, to protect the industry here “against European cheap labor.” How are they able to overcome the same “European cheap labor” when they sell starch in Europe, at the very doors of the European manufacturers, with the protection of no duty whatever? The official reports show that the greater part of the 20,000,000 pounds exported was sold in Europe—in the Netherlands, Ehgland, Belgium, Germany and other countries. The American manufacturers who are protected here by a duty of 84 per cent, undersold the products of “European cheap labor” in the very places where that labor is employed, and they did this not only without the help of a tariff tax designed to increase the price of the foreign starch, but also under the handicap of ocean freight charges. Do not these reports indicate that they need here at home no tariff duty whatever? And now let us see what the Treasury statements say about prices. There was a small quantity of starch imported last year—about $90,000 worth. Our table shows that the value of this starch was 2.37 cents a pound before the duty was paid, and the addition of the duty would make the cost 4.37 cents. On the other hand, it is shown that the value of the American starch whoff exported was 3.22 cents a pound. If the American manufacturers can lay down starch at our seaports for shipment to Europe at 3.22 cents, why was this foreign starch sold here, the cost of it at the domestic seaport being 4.37 cents? We presume that those who have had dealings with the starch trust could answer this question. It is well known that immediately after that trust was made the price of American starch to American consumers was largely increased. The sale of foreign starch here at an average cost of 4.37 cents, while the domestic manufacturers were shipping millions of pounds to Europe at a declared value of only 3.22 cents, suggests the explanation that the Trust was telling to the foreigner at prices much lower than those which it exacted from the people here who had given it “protection.” The complaint of the starch manufacturers that a duty of 42 per cent, is not sufficient to protect them here at home “against European cheap labor” is absurd enough, when the export record is considered, to provoke a broad smile on the face of our almost boundless cornfields. —New York Times.

The Income Tax. If Congress carries out the wishes of the country it will adopt an income tax. Some persons with big incomes are bitterly oppose to it, but the masses of the people believe it to be right and want it put on. Great Britain has an income tax, and it works well. It was first established in 1793. This tax wa9 repealed in 1816, but Sir Robert Peel, the greatest of political reformers, revived it in 1842 to meet a deficiency in the government’s revenues, and under conditions very similar to those which are now upon us. For more than fifty years» this tax has been levied. In 1874 Mr. Gladstone talked about repealing it, but though he was then Prime Minister he could not carry it through. The tax is now considered part of the fixed policy of Great Britain. In 1898 it yielded a revenue of more than $69,000,000 and hurt nobody. Give us a Federal income tax!—Atlanta Journal.