Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-09-14

g At this iuncture Mr.. NJ A. Fulton, of
Hudson, was introduced and he gave his
views, more especially in regard to the
tariff on wool, claiming that the tariff did
not affect the wool grower, as the quotations
showed that wool from Australia and other
English colonies was sold at about the
same price in London as American wool
sold in Cincinnati, Now York and other
cities IN the United States. Mr.. Fulton's
arguments did not throw a very large
amount of light upon the vexed question
Of the tariff, as it affected wool-growers.
There being no other parties to be heard
the commission took recess until y. 10.
lIR. HEwIrT's VIEWS.
Hon. Abram S. Hewitt, OF New York,
coming IN, the tariff commission recon
vened to hear his views on the subject of a
tariff on iron and steel. He said:
Mr.. Hewitt-If the government did not
need revenue for its support, the question
of friendly tariff would never come up. I
suppose it originated in the necessity of
the government for revenue, and that the
question of protection was purely Incl
dental. A tax for revenue adds undoubted-
ly to the price of the article imported,
and is, so far, protection to that industry.
Hence it is impossible To consider the
question of tariff (even from the revenue
standpoint without considering the effect of
the tariff on the industries of the country:
because, whether We like it or not, Incl
dental protection must arise from tariff
for revenue. This is inevitable. You are
therefore brought to the consideration of
the effect of the duty on each class of bust
ness. And then you are brought to con-
slider the question at what point you will
begin to protect-that is whether the duty
which you propose is protective OF OBJ
structive, whether it is protective OF de-
structive. For instance, you might ar
range duties on raw materials in such o
way rs absolutely to make l. impossible to
carry on the business OF manufacturing
the raw material into useful forms If
the duty on the raw material is found to
be an interference with any branch of bust
ness, it should not be imposed. If it be
found that duty on manufactured pro-
duct is less than the duty on the raw ma
terial, either the former ghouid be increased
Or the latter reduced. And the commits
sion should be careful not to impose duties
on raw materials when such duties are not
needed for protection. Take iron ore as
an example. Iron ore is an earth. There
is no labor on it except the
labor of digging it out. Our com
petitors for iron ore are 5000 milesaway
The first freight on the foreign iron ore is
greater than the whole cost of digging it
in this country and putting it on cars or
boats. I state this deliberately, for have
heard it said that iron ore comes here in
ballast. I will not say that 100 tons or 500
tons may not have come here some time or
other in ballast, but it is absolutely
untrue that iron ore comes here in ballast.
1t comes as a cargo, and generally as Ian
exclusive cargo. And in my experience l
have never known charter party for iron
ore, either from Africa or Spain, at less
than Is shillings per ton. IF there is COM
petition anywhere in regard TO iron ore it
must be on the coast. In other words,
while the iron ore producers on the coast
might complain of foreign competition,
those in the interior have no cause of COM
plant, because they are protected by the
freight from the coast to the interior.
am large miner of iron ore in Pennsyl-
vania, New Jersey, New York, Michigan,
Tennessee and Alabama, and
ASK NO PROTECTION AGAINST FOREIGN IRON
ORE.
am told that the Lake Superior men
have asked for an increase of duty on iron
ore. Now the freight on iron ore from the
coast to Chicago and Cleveland, (the great
markets for the Lake Superior iron ore) is
greater than the whole cost of the iron ore
of Lake Superior put upon the cars. There
fore, cannot understand that the Lake
Superior iron ore producers need any pro-
lection. 1 am large miner of magnetic
md
is not o pound of ore that 1 mine
which do not put On the cars for less
money than the freight ON the foreign ore
from Africa or Spain to New York; and,
therefore, for me to ask for protection
under such circumstances would be the
height of impudence and stupidity. The
! foreign ores come here because they are
necessary for mixing with our ores, and
! the duty upon them is necessarily added to
the price of the article produced from
them. The consumer has to pay that
additional price, and the government gets
revenue which it does not need. The
reason why foreign iron ore is
used here is because it is low
| in phosphorus. Most of the American
ores have little too much phosphorus in
| them to make Steel but by using one-half
produce an article of pig iron low enough
in phosphorus to produce steel. Every
ton of foreign ore make market for ton
of American ore which would otherwise
not be taken out of the ground Or used.
The foreign ore, therefore, does
not reduce the price of American
ore, but, by charging the market, gives us
a better price for American ore. There is
no conceivable circumstance under which
[ think duty should be placed on foreign
iron ore; nor can any conceivable benefit
come to American iron ore interests from
| such duty. On the contrary, the duty is a
positive damage to Us. I may be asked if
| have personal interest in the matter,
and, therefore, shall anticipate the ques-
ton. do not import any foreign iron ore
and do not use it. simply deal with the
question as I see it. I compete with no
| foreign ore.
afternoon Session.
There being no one present to testify
the commission went into executive ses-
sion at $50 o'clock, the principal business
being the fixing of dates on which the