National Republican., 1883-08-17
A clumsy Misrepresentation Corrected.

A few days since the Washington Post made
the following statement:
But the tariff, as 1t is makes various raw mate
rialS cost so much that the most successful Of Now
England manufacturers cannot compete with
Europe in the markets of the world. Hence the
gut of ovorproduction is seriously felt, and hence
Mr.. Hoars significant intimaton that he and the
interests for which hu speaks have been CON
verted to the theory of Mr. Hewitt, TO wi-that we
must have cheap raw materials If we are to grow
in manufactures.
Mr.. Hewitt, whose theory is above referred
to, said in his speech of March 30, 1882, on
the subject of the tariff:
For our manufactured products the markets OF
the world are practically closed against us. The
reason of this is, mainly that our tariff legislation
has created artificial barriers to the introduction
of raw materials. We find IL impossible
to compete with Great Britain France, and Ger
| many, whose industry stands upon tho firm and
natural basis of free raw material.
Can it be that either tho Post or Mr. Hewitt
is so ignorant as their respective utterances
intent on manufacturing the facts necessary
to the conclusions they have determined
upon. Mr.. Hewitt is great iron worker.
Ho knows that when he manufactures baud,
bar, horseshoe, hoop, railway, rod, or scroll
iron from scrap iron imported by him from
foreign countries, tho government pays
him back every penny paid by him
in the way of duty on that
iron. That is to say, scrap iron
ia virtually duty free (or duty returnable)
when used to manufacture articles for ex-
port. How much less than nothing does Mr..
Hewitt want to SEQ the duty on the raw
material used by him in his manufacturing
establishments What artificial barriers"
has our tariff legislation created to tho intre-
duction of raw materials to be used by Mn
Hewitt and his fellow workers in iron In
manufactures for "the markets of the world?''
We repeat that for every manufactured article
manufactured of scrap iron and exported by
him he receives back all tho duties he paid.
He has free raw materials. Is he honest in
his statement? If it be said that he was not
referring to iron, wo reply that it was disin-
gonuous and unfair in him to omit that great
feet under which he is growing richer ever
day. But iron does not stand alone thus
favored. Treasury circular of Dec. 1879,
department No. 176, is very instructive
document If our morning contempo-
rary really wishes to give its readers
aomo truthful information, it can pub
lish that. 1t is merely an official
| Il. IL. L. :. II
return of duties to importers in cases where
the imported articles have been used in
manufactures for export. 1t will be found that,
under the various provisions allowing draw
backs in such cases. there are moro than one
hundred and fifty classes of articles which,
being exported entitlo the manufacturer to
have returned to him the duty paid by him
on the imported raw materials of which they
are made.
The settled policy of tho tariff system of
tho republican party is to retain no duty on
the manufacture of articles for expectation.
A careful study of our drawback system will
save democratic editors from much absurd
laundering, and u general diffusion of the
knowledge thus obtained might deter even
Abraham S. Hewitt from some of the grossel
of his characteristic misrepresentation. Let
whoever thinks tho manufacturers are moi
getting in any raw materials duty free
ponder on the fact that during the year end
ing June 80, 1883 $2,O55,733 of duties paid
by them were returned to them under the
drawback provisions above referred to.