Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1883-02-14

|
to one-third Of what it was before
In glassware still more remarkable
results had been achieved, mainly by
the capital and ingenuity of gentle
man in Indiana. Such had been the
results of home competition under the
tariff. But now these industries were
languishing in New Jersey and Ohio,
and the Indiana glass manufactul
was struggling for existence. The
duty proposed in this bill, though
nominally greater than the present
rate, was really only equivalent to it
because certain extra charges levied
under the existing tariff were to be
abolished. The Tariff Commission
and the Finance Committee had inves.
tigated the subject thoroughly, and il
the Senate could not regard the rec
concentrations of those bodies what
was the use of referring these matters
to them at all.
Mr.. Beck said that when the report
of the Tariff Commission first came
out he had thought it entitled to great
consideration, but he was now salts
fed that it deserved none at all, be-
cause the Commission had merely rec
commended what was prepared for it
by interested parties.
Mr.. Sherman said he thought this
attack upon the Tariff Commission
grossly unjust.
Mr.. Vance replying to a statement
by Mr.. Sherman that 80 per cent. of
the cost of manufacturing these arti-
cles went to the support of American
labor said the figures showed that ma
terial and labor together did not
amount to 70 per cent. To show the
interest taken by these manufacturers
in American labor he read circular
of the Miaga Glass Manufacturing
Company, of New Jersey, announcing
that after four months idlcness, caused
by strikes, they have resumed opera
tons and are working with French
operatives" who have proven equal if
not superior to the native American
workmen." (Laughter.) He also
called attention to the statement of a
workman employed by the Indiana
manufacturer eulogized by Mr.. Sher-
man to the effect that that gentleman
had imported foreign workmen to sup
plant Americans. He reviewed in an
amusing manner the history of this
"infant industry" from its birth in
1889, and said he hoped the day would
soon come when the American work
ingman would see that he was being
used as dupe by men whose profess
sions of protecting" him were mere
ly a pretext for levying taxes upon
the great body of the people, includ-
ing the workingmen.
Mr.. Slater (Dem.) presented a cal
culation showing, he said, that the peo-
pie have to pay $3.50 to the protect
ed" industries in order to get 81 of
revenue into the Treasury.
Mr.. Morgan (Dem.) remarked that
capital seemed to be in antagonism on
the one side, with the consumer, and
on the other with the workingman,
but he had always believed that a
protective tariff bore more severely
upon the men employed in manufac-
lures than upon any other class. A
very intelligent gentleman, Mr.
Wright, of Philadelphia, had called
the attention of the Tariff Commits
sion to the address of operative pot
tiers, employed in Trenton, to Congress
setting forth their conviction that "a
high rate of duty on crockeryware
yields no benefit financially for the
workingman, but is inimical to his in
terests by increasing the price of liv-
ing" Considering the source from
which it came, no more eloquent speech
than this could be made in behalf of
the working potters of the United
States. 1t was greatly to be regretted
that the Committee on Education and
Labor had not made its proposed in
vestigation into the relations of oper-
atives and employers in the manufac-
lures of the country. IF that whole
subject could be laid open with the
intelligence and frankness manifested
by Mr.. Wright in this case, Congress
would know much better than it knew
now what to do for the protection of
the American laborer, but without
any investigation of details it was
clear that the claim of the capitalist
to be the ally and protector of the OPP
erative was false pretense and de-
fusion. The real ally of the operative
was the consumer, for between these
two there was perfect identity of in
terest.
Mr.. Morrill, said the Senate had
spent four hours on an item that ought
to have been disposed of in thirty
minutes.
Mr.. Morgan replied that if the Seu-