Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-02-07


the people OF this great valley have but to
work earnestly and unremittingly, and the
great object they have in view will be ac-
complished Let Memphis be among the
foremost and most active; it has urgent rea-
son for yigor and perseverance.
THE IRON TIE-N0T A CENT FOR
TRIBUTE.
Months ago the APPEAL warned cotton
growers and merchants that the iron interest
of Pennsylvania was preparing attack
upon their profits and their prosperity. AS
is so frequently the case with us, we have
quietly sat still in indifference, while the
monopolists were actively constructing their
works and charging their batteries, and now
the crisis is approaching We have all our
preparations for resistance to make. II we
are to ward off discreditable- attack,
prompted by the selfish greed OF never-to-be-
satisfied monopolists, we must to-day up and
be doing in earnest. The iron tie is now
universally used to fasten together the cot
ton that has been pressed into a bale, and
the cost Of it, contrary to the general rule,
comes out of the pocket of the growers.
Usually the consumer pays the tax imposed
upon merchandise, and were the United
States the only grower of cotton it would be
SO in the case of that article. But cotton
has to contend IN the markets of the world
with other cotton that is fastened by bands
that are not taxed. Take off the tax, and
the seller would get as much in the open
bet how tha TOW tn, bo
does now that payment has to be made,
which proves the e. assertion that
in this case the producer, not the
consumer pays the tax. Under these circum-
stances the amount OF the tax imposed upon
the iron tie is an important object with the
cotton grower, who is already subjected to
sufficient necessary drains and losses without
being heavily Inulcted to support an interest
that has made itself his enemy by aiming to
diminish his income, and cut down his means
of living. Originally the treasury classed
iron ties along with hoOp-iron, and levied
upon it the same tax, one and half cents a
pound, equal to eighty per cent. dd Ualorem.
The manufacturers OF the ties at length COM
planned that the classification was erroneous.
Unlike hoop-iron, which is material out of
which various articles can be III ade, the iron
tie was itself a regularly manufactured i'm
plement, fitted and used for given purpose,
having various parts, each ada pted for the
object for which it was manufactured. On
examination these representations were found
to be correct. The iron tic was much an i'm
plement adapted to given purpose as a file
or horse.collsr. The decision was there
fore rendered that iron ties did not belong to
the eighty-per-cent.- paying hoop-iron class,
but, not being specifically named in the
tariff acts, it belongs TO the unbiased
articles. The duty ON such articles
the law puts at thirty-fve per cent.
ad raloren,, less than one-half the charge
made under the erroneous classification.
The change excited the utmost anger of the
six, or perhaps seven firms in the United
States that were the monopolzers of the man
ufacture of the iron ties. The iron men gen.
orally made common cause with these monop-
olists in a movement to have the eighty per
cent. duty restored. The courts were resorted
to, but after full investigation the decision
and the thirty-five per cent. duty. Under
these circumstances the iron masters have re-
solved to apply to Congress to restore the
eighty per cent. rate. Now what are the
cotton-growers and the cotton interest gener-
ally to do? Shall they quietly submit to pay
the eighty, per cent, the iron interest de-
mandsf The eighty cents is not for the sup
,,,,rt Of ttx ', Al ,,ant bt for tho
enrichment OF the iron master. The cotton
interest is made tributary to the iron interest;
it is SO now, indeed, butthe contribution is to
be doubled. Shall the cotton-grower defend
himself by claiming a retention of the present
thirty-fve per cent. duty? In our opinion
this just what hsshouid not do. Why should
the cotton-grower be tributary to the
Pennsylvania monopolist? Why should
he be compelled to pay one cent of
duty? 1t is not the foreign consumer of cot
ton that pays the tax, as we have shown
above; therefore the tax is not a protection
tax against the foreigner, but a shameful
tribute levied by the iron master upon the
home producer of cotton. The cotton-grower
has as much right to what is called protec-
ton. as the iron miner or pudhiler, but in this
case, while no protection is given to him,
while cotton machinery must pay high taxes,
and railway freight be9Put higher than it
would be on his cotton bales because of the
heavy tax upon railroad iron-unprotected
and taxed, is it right he should have the
iron-tie tribute levied on him? That tribute
exacted by the iron interest from the cotton
interest ought TO cease. 1t is unjust in itself,
and 1t is an insult 10 exact contribution
from the cotton7grower Tor the benefit of the
iron master. 1t is -insaferable insolence in
those men to plot and scheme-not to protect
an article of home production which pays
millions to the government and the people,
but to tax aud extort, and defraud the hard
working man who raises the cotton that has
done SO much for the prosperity of the coun-
try. Not cent for tribute Let that be our
cry, and let US demand OF Congress that the
cotton-grower be relieved of the unjust and
insulting contribution which is wrung from
him, and which oppressive extortionists are
now trying to more than double. No duty
on iron ties.
-
| Mr.. CHARLES B. WAYNAS, Erie, Pennsyl.
vsnia writes: my physicians had given me
and liver were all decaYed and gone.
| 1 was very weak, pale and emaciated. By
| chance 1 Browns Iron Bitters advertised.
| I Immediately realized that without iron in the
4 1oOA nruf any.