The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-10-27
SOME MORELIGHT.


Mr.. David A. Wells, in one OH commu-
cations to the Iowa State Leader, tells the
story of the. cotton tie legislation in con
gress." It seems that this interest was sub
jected to duty of 20 per cent. under the ex-
sting tariff which was''framed in, 1872 and
wherein some 1000 articles of commerce
were taxed the enormous rates which it
was then contended were necessary to meet
the exigencieS ofthe times. 1t appears fur
Their that according to law, the true rate fixed
by that legislation was only s. per cent,
although in the meanwhile the former fig
ures had been .wrung from the pockets of
the farming interest or such as produced
the cotton. BY suit brought and carried
through the United States supreme court,
it was finally decided against the prOtec-
tioniSts and iron manufacturers who
claimed that imported ties should be taxed
as hoop iron on which the law imposed the
said duty of per cent. The cotton grow
ing representatives had always contended
per contra that cotton ties, being bands
of iron, with buckles and clasps attached,
and not used or known at the time the tariff
act was passed, being of subsequent inyen-
ton could not have been specifically in
cluded in said tariff; and that therefore
they must come within the expression of
the "things not otherwise provided for. ="
Now observe the gross injustice done to the
farmers of the south under that iniquity.
Resulting from that tax the cotton-growers
had to pay ten cents per bale
extra on their crops Now the cot
ton production of last season was
somewhere above 100000 bales, which at
ten cents per bale drew directly from an
interest least able to afford the tax, and one
at the foundation of all our prosperity, the
enormous sum of $060,000 And prior to
the decision of the supreme court last
spring reached, of course, nearly double
that sum under the 20 per cent. rule. the
crop being in excess of 5000 900 bales. Now
what was the amount by the government de-
rived from duties on all sorts of imported
hoop or band iron? Statistical tables re-
merce and navigation, show it to have been
some $l,227. If this is not striking case
Of spoliation and robbery of the farming IN.
dustry of the south, ii it IS not a
case of incquitable, uniform, I'M
just, discriminating taxation against that
industry, then We are utterly unable TO
conceive of one. And particularly is it so
seen when we reflect that for
every 100000 persons engaged in
manufactures in this country there is al.
most exactly 100000 employed in agrcul-
ture, Again, our production of cotton fab
RIGS last year was about $35O,OOO, 900, the
average import duty on such articles being
say - per cent, or a tribute to the manu-
| facturers Of some $700O0,0OO. The cotton
tie case is only sample of what is being
done daily under the tariff laws. Let us
look at some Of the other iron data.
The duty on pig iron, for instance
is 81 tom the home production
of pig iron last year was 100000 tons,
whereas the imports amounted to only
10000 tons. Now the tax paid to our rich
Pennsylvania friend. was therefore some
sl70O0OOo, while that paid to the United
States government was only S5G00O0; or
for the latter 81, for the manufacturer $50.
Now when we consider the fact that upon
iron, the great necessity of the age all
of us, and especially the farmers, are so de-
pendent in all manner of things from n
steam engine to kitchen kettle or a cam.
brio needle, We would conceive that
some consideration to secure its cheapncss
would be had. But what are the facts concern
ing this the problem of even, cheap trans
portation the wish of producer and con-
sumner? Take one article rails Steel rails
last year cost in England s25 per ton, trans
portation expenses $500, natural price, for
American market, duty SIS; protection
price, $56. Now here we had to pay Just 100
per cent, or double, on this great cost of
railroading. The production was some 800.
| 900 tons, or robbery at S2S per
ton of some Sll,0OO,0OO! And thus runs
the list all the way through these necessary
vi lllt Nllllc Nllt luNNTltS Ol Nnuln
and the "vanities of France are but fecbly
taxed, as on diamonds the duty being only 10
per cent, while on laces ii is only IS per cent.
If in view of such data as these, the farmers.
when properly advised, do not rebel against
the iniquity, surely they must have So.
renity that is inconcevable to say the least,
Particularly so when, too we have regard
to the other fact that OF the relative amounts
ofcapital invested the farmers are shown by
the returns to have $1,000, goo 900, against
the manufacturers $4,000 900; and that
other fact that in the distribution Of the la.
Dor load annually carried the farmer popu.
lation stands 80 per cent, other unprotect
ed industries 80 per cent, protected indus
tries - per cent; the farmer carry
ing half the load and getting nothing
for it. Mr.. Wells is doing humanity goot
service when he attacks the legislation on
cotton ties. Let his hands be sustained
Such gross protection is iniquity. "Turi
upon it the light of full, earnest discussion
and it will de-
SOUTHERN ROOM.