Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-02-16
A "Loyal' Paper ON New Eng
land SeIfisbness.
IFrOm The Cincinnati COmmercial.l

/
We learn from source entitled to credit,
| that the Senate of the United States will kill
| the House resolution reducing the duty OH
| paper from twenty to three per cent. Our
informant writes:
"You can rely upon the statement that
| the three per cent. paper tax will not sue
ceed in the Senate. 1t may be put to ten
per cent, but will not go below that. 1t is
my opinion that it will rest as at present,
twenty per cent. 1t will be impossible to
get the thing through the Senate as it came
from the House. New,England is too strong,
and they are all high-tariff Wings. Sher-
man is in favor of ten per cent; but says
a majority of the Senate is against him.
Three per cent. would be unjust to paper
makers, as their internal taxes amount to
about nine per cent"
1t is pertinent, in the first place, to OBJ
serve that the internal taxes of paper-mak-
ers are not nine per cent, but are three per
cent, and that is the reason why the House
proposed to tax importations at the same
rate. ........ ..r
We dislike, exceedingly, to say any thing
that encourages the formation of q feeling
of sectional antagonism between the East
and the West, but we do not hesitate to OBJ
serve in this connection, that the high-tariff
Wings of New England are entirely too
much devoted to their special interests. and
that the time must be fastened when West
ern Senators and Representatives shall
represent their States and the people at
home, rather than the squad of New Eng
land capitalists.
The present tariff on paper is prohibitory.
1t increases the price of paper to the con-
sumner (the pie who buy books and news
papers) twenty per cent, and adds not
dollar to the revenue of the nation. 1t Is
practically, by the prohibition of competi-
ton, placing premium OF twenty per cent.
upon mean article of paper.
The New England Senators and their fol-
lowers are not attempting to raise revenue
by taxing importations. They are divert
ing the public money from the public treas
ury to the pockets of monopolists; and they
advance the crazy notion that by driving
labor and capital into unproductive chan
nels by special legislation, and giving to
corporations that which belongs to the peo-
pie, they will augment, at no distant day,
by some indirect process, impossible of ex-
PLANTATION so as to be understood by any |
practical man, the internal revenue. |
We do not see why Senator Sherman op- |
poses the reduction of the paper duty to |
three per cent? and would compromise by |
making it ten. He might as well put it at |
one hundred per cent. Ten per cent. is a |
prohibitory duty. One hundred per cent.
is precisely Ine SAME. 4
The Ne1 York Tribune has INDUCED its |
high-tariff proclivities so far as to appeal
to "Republiean Congress" to maintain the |
monopolists at the expense of the public.
The Chicago Tribune puts the facts to its
namesake as follows:
'sThe most absurd argument put forth in
The Tribune article is, that If the duty benot |
disturbed, but be made permanent the large |
profit made by the mills will induce new
mills to be established, and the competition
will supply the market and reduce the price.
Now the fact is, that for more than twenty
years past, The american mtlls haze supplied
he entire market /; theyhave enjoyed complete
monopoly oft. Not a redm Of print except
on one occasion, and that at loss, has been TN
ported since 1910. The present mills are d6und-
antly able TO supply every sheet Of paper pub
fishers require. New mills will only be built
and old ones enlarged in proportion as the
demand for paper increases, just as they
have been heretofore. This single set Of
facts overturns all of Carey IS and Greeley's
pettifogging and speclous sophistry in be-
half of the prohibitory tariff on paper"