Rensselaer Republican, Volume 22, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 April 1890 — FOR THE PEOPLE. [ARTICLE]

FOR THE PEOPLE.

Republican tariff bill report SN THE HOUSE, raMII ' . * . Equitable Revision.—Tl»e interests of |lHthe Wage-Earner, the Manufacturer and BHrariner Protected.—Sugrur and Hides on ■the Free Hist Silk Industry to be En. A Reduction of *71,000,000, ■■The reports of the majority and minority the ways and means committee on the |Hriff bill were presented to the House on IHie 16th. The majority report begins with of the financial situation, and that the surplus at the end of Hie fiscal year will be $91,000,000, and after IHeducting the sum required to make pay|Hients on the sinking fund the net surplus |H receipts over expenditures will be $43,The estimated surplus of the next |Hscal year $43,569,523, which, with the of cash on hand and available, Wmt the revenue in the sum contemplated by bill, which is reported to be $60,936,936, payably more from customs, and $lO,*37,878 from internal revenue, or a total of ■71,264,414. H The majority report says: “The exact upon the revenues of the governs Hnent of the proposed bill is difficult of asThat there will be a subreduction, as we will show, ads Hnits of no doubt. It is not believed that H;he increase 6f duties upon wools and Rvoolen goods, and upon glassware, will Hiave the effect of increasing the revenues. ■That would, of course, follow if the imHjortations of the last fiscal year were ■lereafter to be maintained, which, howHsver, is altogether improbable. ■The result will be that importr■ticms will be decreased, and, therefore, the Hamountofrever.ua collected from these ■sources will bo diminished. In every case Hos increased duty, except that imposed Hupontiu plate, which does not go into ■effect until Julyl, 1891, and upon linen ■fabrics, the effect will bo to reduce, rather ■than enlarge, the revenues, because im■portations will fall off. It was the aim of ■the committee to fix the duties upon that ■class of manufactured goods aud farm ■produots which can be supplied at home, ■so as to discourage the use of like foreign ■ products and secure to our own people and ■ our own producers the homo market, be- ■ lieving that competition among ourselves ■ will secure reasonable prices to consumers ■in the future as it has invariably done in ■ the past. We seek by the increased duties ■ recommended not only to maintain, but to I enlarge our own manufacturing plants and ■ check those supplies from abroad which ■ can be profitably produced at home. The I general policy of the bill is to foster and I promote American products and diversifi- ■ cation of American industry. We have ■ not been so much concerned about the I prices of the articles we consume as we I have been to encourage a system of home I production that shall give fair remunera- ■ tion to domestic producers and fair wages I to American workmen, and by increased I production and home competition insure I fair prices to consumers.” I The committee admits that free trade or I revenue duties would temporarily diminish I prices, but argue that it would be at the I expense of the domestic products, which would be displaced, aud then prices would again advance and the country be left at the mercy of foreign syndicates and manufacturers. The report says: “Cheaper products from abroad to the American consumers mean cheaper labor at borne and lower rewards to the domestic pro ducer, with no permanent benefits to the consumers. Neither condition would prove a blessing to the United States. That country —is the least prosperous where low prices and low wages prevail. One of the chief complaints now prevalent among our farmers is that they can get no prices for their crops at all commensurate to the labor and capital invested in their production. Those who differ from us must believe that even further agricultural depression is deplorable, for no other consequence can result from their economic theories. They advocate cheap prices as the chief object of the industrial policy they commend to the country. This means permanently low prices for agricultural products as well as for manufactured goods. This bill is framed in the interests of the people of the United States ._ It is for tne better defense of American homes and American industries. “Ample revenues for the wants of the government are provided by this bill, and every reasonable encouragement is givdn to productive enterprises and to the labor employed therein. The committee believes that, inasmuch as nearly $400,000,000 are annually required to meet the expenses of the government, it is wiser to tax those • foreign products which seek a market here in competition with our own than to tax our domestic products or the noneompeting foreign products. “The committee, responding, as it believes, to the sentiment of the country and the recommendations of the President, submit what they consider to be a just and equitable revision of the tariff, which, while preserving that measure of protection required for our industrial independence, will secure a reduction of the revenue both from customs and internal revenue sources. We have not looked alone to reduction of the revenue, but have kept steadily in view the interests of our producing classes, and have been ever mindful of that which is due to our political condition, our labor and the character of our citizenship. We have realized that a reduction of duties below the difference between the cost of labor and production in competing countries and our own would result either in the abandonment of much of our manufacturing here or in the depression of our labor. Either result would bring disaster, the extent of which no one can measure. We have recommended no duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of production here, including labor and the cost of like production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have we hesitated to give this measure of duty, even though it involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance of percentages and ad valorem equivalents. We have not sought to make a uniform rate of duty Upon all imported articles. This would have been manifestly UDjust and inequitable.” The committee closes its argument upon the tari ff by a quotation from the 1 ast annual message of the President, and then pro coeds to discuss the details of the bill,' taking up first the general provisions intended to prevent frauds, such as the limitation of exemption from duty of

wearing apparel to the extent of 1500, the omission of the present provision for free entry of goods, wherein the price paid included the duty, and the protective clause relating in registered trade marks. The report next treats of the changes that have been made in tbe duty imposed on schedules of the existing law. Of chemicals it says that many not produced in the United States are placed on the free list to benefit the consumers—mainly manufacturers. The result is a remission of SS7O,OO!>. Earthen and chinaware remain without material change, but an Increase has been recommended on glasswaro to compensate for the high labor cost, and to prevent destructive foreign competition.

WOOL ANP WOOLEN SCHEDULES. In the case of wool the report cites Aril vs »ti evidence of the alarming decline I t production, and says that an advance of duties has been recommended* which, it is believed, will afford ample protection to wool fe im'iusr farmers. While the Senate bill li ved the duty on third class wool at 4 cents, the o imraittec places it at oents, an inir noon the belief that with the reioh *r>Tcflnilions and classifications, atitl the a idition of port chargw recom Lpvrdwl bv the bill, the difference will he Mly com pen sa tod. The committee be-

lieves that the United States should produce ail of the wool it consumes and that With adequate defensive legislation it will do so. The annual consumption is 600,000,000 pounds, and,with the protection afforded by the bill, the farmers of the United States will, at an early day. be able to supply this demand, by the addition of of 100 per cent, or 100,000,000 sheep to the present number. The bill seeks to stop the frauds which have been so shamelessly practiced in the past by importing wools ready for the loom under new names and forms to avoid legal duty. The report gives the increase of the duty on wool and the consumption given to the worsted clause of the existing law as a reason for increasing the duties on woolen goods to protect manufacturers. It says: “The necessity of this increase is apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of the foreign value of $52,681,483 as shown by the undervalued invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly $90,000,000 —fully onefourth of our entire home consumption —equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000 pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods.” Exist ing law gives, it is said, a protection of 35 to 45 per cent. The bill gives a range of 30 to 50 percent. The Mills bill gave a uniform rate of 40 per cent.—more than was required on low grades and less than was required for fine grades. The advance in these fine grades will, it is believed, diminish importations and thereby reduce instead of increase the revenue, and transfer to the country the manufacture of from $15,000,000 to $30,000,000 of - woolen goods now made abroad. The average rate of the woolen goods schedule proposed, including the specific duty on the wool used and the manufacturers’ duty is 01.78 percent. The average rate at present is 67.15 per cent., but if the worsted decision had been made at the beginning of the year it would have been increased 10 per cent., and 15 per cent more would have been added if worsted yards had paid the rate they should. If these manifest errors in constructions of law bad been earlier corrected, the average rate last year would have been nearly 80 per cent. Of lumber the report says that any reduction of the light duties would have discouraged the proper care of our timber lands and have inured to the benefit of Canada without diminishing market ■prlcasr ' : ■ —■

PIG-IRON AND TIN. Of the metal schedules, the report says that no reduction can bo made in pig-iron or ore duties without detriment to existing industries, and the commiitce has not felt justified in interfering with the further development of our iron ore resourceSj now so promising in the Southern States. With regard to pig-iron it may be said that it is in no sense a raw material. It is a product of the highest skill, requiring for its manufacture large and expensive plants, the capital invested in which in our country to-day more than equals that which is invested in any other branch of our iron and steel industries. Pig-iron is made in twenty-five States in the Union. Itsmanufacture is increasing rapidly in many States, largely as the result of the protective duty, which has long given encouragement to its production. It has had a marvelously rapid growth in the Southern and Western States in the last ten years, and it is to-day the leading manufacturing industry south of the Potomac and Ohio rivers. It has been the most potent of all influences in the industrial rehabilitation of the South. The .‘report strongly sustains the increased duty recommended on tin-plate. FREE SUGAR - BOUNTY FOR HOME-MADE. Of sugar the report says: “The committee recommend that sugar up to and including No. 16 Dutch standard of color, and molasses, be placed on the free list, with a duty of 1 cent per pound on refined sugar above No. 16, and that a bounty of 3 cents per pound be paid from the treasury, for a period of fifteen years, for all sugar polarizing at least 85 percent., made in this country from cane, beets or sorgham produced in the United States. “In 1888 the consumption of sugar in the United States was 1,469,997 tons, or 53.1 pounds per inhabitant. Of this only 189,814 tons were produced in the United States, and 1,280,183 tons, or seven eights of our consumption, were imported. So large a proportion of our sugar is imported that the home production of sugar does not materially affect the price, and the duty is therefore, a tax, which is added to the price not only of the imported but domestic product, which is not true of duties imposed on articles produced or duties collected on imported sugar and molasses amounted to $55,975,610. Add to this the increase of price of domestic sugar arising from the duty, and it is clear that the cost of sugar and molasses consumed by the people of this country is at least $64,000,000,0r about $1 for each man,woman and child in the United States more than it would have been if no such duties had been levied, and the domestic product had remained the same. Even on the assumption that with proper encouragement we shall eventually be able to produce all, or nearly all the sugar required by our people, an assumption which your committee believe to be sustained by many facts, notwithstanding the slow progress made thus far in sugar culture in this country—this encouragement can be given much more economically and effectually by a bounty of 2 cents per pound, involving the expenditure of but a little more than $7,000,000 per annum, with the present production of sugar in this country, than by the imposition of a duty involving the collection of $55,975,610 in duties in the last fiscal year, not to mention the amount indirectly involved. When it is considered that this increase in cost, due to the duty, falls on an article of prime necessity as food, your committee are persuaded that justice as well as good policy requires that such an unnecessary burden in the way of a direct tax should be removed from sugar, and that the encouragement required to induce the production of sugar in the United Statesjshould be given through a bounty rather than by an import duty. “In prodding that not only raw sugar, but, also, sugar up to and including No. 16, shall be admitted free of duty, an opportunity is given for the free introduction of yellow sugars suited for family use —an arrangement which will secure to our people sugar at the lowest prices existing in the markets of the world, while even imported white refined sugar will be subject to a duty of only 1 cent per pound.”

AGRICULTURAL AND KINDRED PRODUCTS. Coming to agricultural products, the report says the committee has given months of investigation to the existing conditions of agricultural and kindred matters. It says: “That there is wide spread depression in this industry to-day cannot be doubled. Every remedy within the scope of practical legislation known to your committee has been recommended in tbe proposed measure to meet the urgent requirements of the situation. The enemies of tbe protective system have no word of criticism for the real causes of agricultural depression, no suggestion of relief from the real burdens which are weighing it down to-day; but, seizing the present as a favorable time, they solemnly charge that the decline in our market is solely due to the tariff. They ate pleased to ignore the fact that one of the purposes of a protective tariff is to hinder a still larger importation of foreign protluce, and thus save the market from still greater depression. But your committee, sensible to the importance of this industry, prompted by the'single motive to lift it to the highest level of profitable employment, believe that they offer in t(ie bill ail toe relief which tariff legislation can give to it A critical examination of tho subject will show that agriculture is suffering chiefly from a most damaging foreign competition in our home market. The increase in importations of agricultural product* sitae 1650 has been

enormous, amounting from $40,000,009 to more than $356,000,000 in 1889. The ‘world’s market,’ to which the advocates of ‘tariff for revenue only’ inyite the farmers of this country, is to-day crowded with the products of the cheapest human labor the earth affords. All over the old world there is a rush of their surplus to that market, and it is such a contest as this that free trade would allure American agriculture. With the foreign grain market under the sway of such oppressive competition, with the foreign cattle and pork market depressed and obstructed by various ruinous measures of restriction, with foreign agricultural products crowding our home market, your committee have recommended an increase upon agricultural products.” With a view to increasing the number of gainful occupations open to the farmer the committee has recommended a bounty to the growers of silk. Reference is made in the report to the successful experiments in silk culture of the Department of Agriculture, which, it is said, fully warrant the belief that the industry is entirely practicable in many of the States. As a duty of $1 a pound would be required to protect the American silk reeler, the committee has decided that so high a duty would embarrass the silk weaving interests without sufficient reason and to secure the industry as speedily as possible, offers the necessary differential or a bounty of $1 per pound, or about 20 per cent.protectioiron reeled silk. The report says: “To produce our annual importations of reeled silk will require 14,000 basins, and give work to over 20,000 persons in the different branches of the industry. To produce tithe cocoons necessary to supply this silk will give temporary but remunerative employment to thp families of half a million farmers every season.” To encourage the production of cocoons and give direct encouragement to the producers the committee has also provided a bounty of 7 cents a pound on fresh cocoons r and these bounties are—to continue, for ten years. This „ bounty, based on last year’s production, would have amounted to but $3,000 on cocoons, and less than one twelfth that sum on silk.

Of the internal revenue sections the committee, after reciting them, says that it-has recommended the repeal of all stat utes imposing restrictions upon farmers and growers of tobacco, so that they will sell with freedom. In conclusion, the report says that the advance of duties on agricultural products would increase the revenues if the imports continue to be as large as during the last year. But as they are for the most part articles which this country can produce to the extent of our wants, the increased duty will reduce importations so that the revenues will not be increased, and our farmers will hold their own markets. The same result will follow in other cases of increase, and, where the revenne is in special cases increased, the increase will be far less than is indicated by a computation based on the theory tnat the importations will continue as large as under lower duties.