The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-05-30

VIII Mr.. Fishback kindly explain how the
tariff, which is such a nice thing for the
Pennsylvania monopoly las he terms it,, is
so destructive to the rail-mill here, on which,
as he says, several hundreds of thousands OF
dollars have been expended Why does
not the ponderous machinery, in splendid
condition, under skilled worKmen, protected
equally with the ponderous machinery in the
Pennsylvania mills glide as smoothly in IA
vor of monopoly as its Eastern relative?
Will Mr.. Fishback say what tariff was
placed upon blooms by the old law, and
what by the new tariff act? VIII he kindly
say that the steel bloom" as such, was un-
known to the old act, and that the duty Of
DO per cent. was put on by the construct ion
OF the Treasury Department which classed
blooms as coming under the provision "All
manufactures of steel, or of which steel shall
be acomponent part. not otherwise provided
for 40 per cent. ad valorem." By the new tar
if act blooms valued at cents pound or
less pay duty of 45 per cent ad valorem;
from to cents per pound, 2 cents per
pound; from Z to 10 cents per pound, 23z
cents per pound In what does this wonder
full decrease consist? Do the owners of the
indianapolis mill desire the duty taken off
entirely? Is that the remedy Mr., Fishback
proposes to apply Will he explain how this
would profit the manufacturer and employer?
The steel bloom" so called, is but the frac-
tional part of an ingot The duty on the in
got was "a cents per pound, equal to $50 per
cent; hence no ingots were imported. But
the shrewd importers cut the ingots into two
or three pieces, named each piece
bloom" and imported it at
a duty of As per cent, which is
the same duty now put upon the bloom
used in making rails. So much for the TRADE
on blooms" While on this subject, will the
able writer explain the advantage to the
country of interpreting the duty on steel
wire rods at 30per cent ad valorem, and the
effect of that Interpretation, which was to
close all the rod-mills in the country and in
duce importations amounting to nearly 200,-
600 tons per annum?
AS to the shoe question. Will he cite the
section of the tariff act which taxes kidskins
at 25 per cent? Will he deny that the larger
portion of ladies, misses and children's
shoes made in the United States are manufac-
tured from what is known as Morocco and
kid, which are made from goatskins the
greater portion of which are imported in a
dry state, and are manufactured into
kid and morocco stock at factor
les located at Philadelphia, Wilmington,
Newark, Brooklyn, Baltimore, Boston and
its vicinity" and that these skins are free
from duty? The writer says our native
feathers are too heavy, and it is necessary to
import lighter feathers. The'largest i'm port
in 1882 of any one kind of leather was of
America there are no calves. There seems to
be no increase in the tariff on leather.
If, as he says, 1.-THE world knows that
American shoemakers are the best in the
world" there is one other thing that desire
to suggest to him, that is that the world
knows equally well that the American shoe
makers get higher wages than any other
shoemakers in the world. That is curious
fact" too, is it not?
A large part of mo. 81 is made up of those
bright (?) generalities in which Mr.. Fishback
abounds, which, while they may be very
witty, amount to nothing in the way of argu-
ments That Mr.. Kelly should have spoken
on "beets," when Mr.. F. desired to hear of
the Mobile riots is very sad indeed, and we
are sorry that we cannot sympathize with
him at greater length. In a close contest of
logic it would be well to eonfiae the discus
sion to the points at issue That party lead
ers have cracked the lash (if SO they have)
does not prove the tariff wrong. So we dis
miss mo. g." let us have mo. TO-"
INDIANAPOLIS. INQUIRER.