The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-11-02

Hon. John B. Hay, of Illinois, in
his speech on the tariff in congress
said: L have here a sample
which l will designate as number
One-an article made of wool and
intended to be made into coats and
clOaks to be worn by persons en-
gagged in outdoor work i'll cold eli
mates. This article con be bought
for 48 cents gold per yard in Eu-
rope. But our tariff subjects it to
the payment of a duty not less than
291 per cent. Ii cannot be main
tanned that yard of this coarse
stuff, costing 48 cents a yard, is Il
luxury. In connection with this,
have here a sample of the finest
broadcloth !; Its cost in England is
one guinea per yard-ten and half
times as much as the stuff for coats
and cloaks that l have just al
luded to. 1t is worn by the most
opulent only. But the duty OH it is
only 48 per cent, or less than one
fourth OF the duty charged on the
heavy, coarse stuff for coats and
cloaks to be worn by the poor, hard
working classes.
Now, sir, none of this stuff at 48
cents per yard is imported. and
hence the government gets no
revenue from it /; but broadcloth at
81 per yard is imported to certain
extent, because it only pays a duty
of AZ per cent. shall anticipate an
answer that the mouopolists, for
whose benefit these high tariff duties
are imposed, may make to this.
They will probably say we have
developed this heavy stuff for coats
and cloaks by manufacturing it here I;
instead fits costing, with the duty,
40 gold, we sell it here for 1.25 cur
rency, therefore you do not pay the
duty charged at all. This IS
a very ingenious reply in
deed; but it will not do. The
people cannot any longer be deceived
and imposed upon by this style of
argument. Sir, this article costs 48
cents gold per yard i'll Europe, and
as the government gets no revenue
from-i it, we ought to buy it here for
So cents and not have to pay you
125 cents per yard for it. So long
as the government realizes no rev.
enue from it, the people want the
benefit, they do not want the manu-
facturers to have it.
1t would seem that these tariff
duties were contrived to discriminate
in favor of the rich and against the
poor. The best champagne that is
imported into our country pays a
duty of about 60 per cent; a poor
mans woolen undershirt pays duty
of 81 per cent. A costly cameps hair
shawl. worth hundreds of dollars, ,and
which can only be worn by lady of
wealth, pays a duty of AZ per cent,
while the cheapest felt carpet import
ed into the country, must pay duty
of 102 per cent. The duty on pair
OF coarse woolen blankets is 140 per
cent. 1t is said not pound of these
blankets has been imported into the
United States for the last three
years; not dollar on these blankets
has gone into the treasury of the ma,
ton; yet pair of these blankets
weighing six pounds can be bought
in England for So in gold, while in
New York they cost the sum of 1915.
The duty on cheap cotton dress
goods is about 125 per cent; on silks
and satins 60 per cent. These dis
ordinations show that our tariff
duties have not been adjusted upon
any principle of equality and justice,
but seemingly with view to en-
hance the profits of few manufac-
turers, and to enable them TO enjoy
monopoly of our markets.