New-York tribune., 1880-02-05
TIE DUTY ON STEEL RAILS.
A FREE TRADE ARGUMENT ny WESTERN LAWYER
A REPLY BY SIR. WHARTON IN BEHALF OF
TUB INDUSTRIAL LEAGUE.
GENERAL PRESS DIsPATcH.l

A REPLY BY SIR. WHARTON IN BEHALF OF
| TuE INDUSTRIAL LEAGUE.
IGENERAL PRESS DIsPATCH.l
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4.-Mr. James +. Wilson,
formerly Representative from Iowa. made statement
before the Committee on Ways aud Means to-day the
proposed bill TO reduce the duty steelras from $2s
to $40 per ton He appeared on behalf of several
Western railroad companies, aud argued in tho free
! trade Interest In favor of the bill.
Mr.. Wilson reminded the Committee that the prop
cry involved i5 vast, its share capital exceeding
| 50 5O00OOOOO. The MANAGEMENT was dhlcnlt and
dclicaie-dlcult because t had heen almost impossible
| 10 move without exciting preiudIccs that ripened
rapidly hostility; delicate, because It touched
almost every interest of the people Nothing connected
with the railroad problem SO largely entered into the
possibilities Of its practical solution as the steera
| durability safety speed and economy depend very
largely on tho quality OF the rail- He did not ask for
departure from tue principle OF protection but protec-
ton does not mean prohibition nor does II mean the
imposition OF duty unreasonably high as to force
upon consumers inferior article at price too high
for "a superior article. That would destroy all
possi siblty OF competition, both as regards quantity
and quality, aud would be unwise legislation.
There are in the United States, he said about $4,000
miles OF raways-or adding in double tracks aud SIDE
| ngs about 10000 miles TO relay existing tracks
and TO construct roads about 100000 tons
OF steel rails will be required annually The
| capacity OF tho American steel rails mills is
equal, he said, TO about one-half OF that demand
Tnis state Of facts eliminates from the case the
element OF competition In quantity. THIS Is the result
after the lapse OF fifteen years since the establishment
OF the first steel rail mill IN the country and with a
duty of SoS per ton duriug ten years OF that time.
Tho production OF the American steel rail mills had
risen from 14t0is tons in 1874. 10 55039s tons In
1879 and the price had fallen from S94 % In 1874
$40 % IN 1875 The duty however had very little do
| with bringing about that result for while the duty
excluded foreign competition, It did not affect competi-
tion among domestic manufacturers, THIS was
! shown by tho fact that the capacity to
produce was not equal to the demand.
II did show however that steel rails can be mauufac-
tured in this country profit OF $32 rs per ton.
when that fact is coupled with the significant fact that
the price OF steel rails about $50 per II might
be reasonably CONCLUDED that the present rate OF duty
too high He referred to tho fact that the purchaser of
English steel rails got guarantee OF ten years wear,
while American manufacturers only gave guarantee
OF five years. He admitted that the American manuiac-
turcr made soel rail better than his guarantee but
did not make equal 10 the English rail Statistics
carefully kept the Illinois Central Railroad Company
showed the English rail Is intrinscaly worth $40
ton more than the American rall account OF longer
| wear.
! Mr. Wilson rehearsed many OF tho arguments made by
Mr. Poor Yesterday and then went to say that II the
presen. advance in the price Of steel rails In England
could the aid of the tariff and solely be-
cause OF an increase demand what danger could that
industry dread this country when II ID supported both
| by che demand ard tho tariff II demand alone
promotes prices TO such extent In England,
what evil apprchended here with reduction of
| duty 10 one-half OF It's present rate
| Representative Keller-What rate of duty on steel
| rails would you indicate
Mr. wilson-I have left that somewhat to the consid
Grafton Of the committee. but should judge that the