Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-11-08

Mr.. j. $. Moore, in letter to the New
York Times, points out some Of the false
statements of Mr.. Blaine by which he at
tempted in his recent speeches in Penn
sylvania and New Jersey to deceive the
workingmen. In one of his speeches Mr..
Blaine said:
1t was about 1867 or 1868 that the first
steel rail was laid in England. When
we des red tn imlort them mere it was
found thar they could not be laid down
short OF $40 per ton, and some were laid
upon what are known as the ' anderbiit
roads at that price. In 1870 thes9 rail-
way men came to Congress-the iron
manufacturers and steel manufacturers
and said, ''if you will give US an ade
quate tariff, we will manufacture steel
rails here and reduce the prices"
and on tip OF the enormous
price at which rails then we're furnished
the Congress OF the United States IMPOSED
a specific dAty 10 gold c in Of $2S per ton.
Those OF you who paw snec al attention 10
the tarih question viii remember the In
Simultaneous and enormous no~l that went
up from the free trade journals and the
lrea trade aracles all over this country.
why" they said, his steel rail IL
already $40 in currency, and you are GO
IN q NJ S2S IN gold on top OF tbat'-the
g Id itself being worth about 30 per cent.
premium. "1Ou nave simply gone tark
mad, and Congress- deserves TO be sent
bodily 10 an insane asylum"
AS a matter of iac', as MIR. Moore
shows, steel rails in 1870 we're not wor
in ENGLAND $40 per ton. They sold from
$50 to $55 per ton. The premium on gold
was not 80 per cent. The average tor the
wear was ahout 16 nar cent
The duty on steel rails was greater be-
fore the $28 per ton duty was put on them
than afterwards, ii what Mr.. Blame says
about the price of steel rails in EnXland
AT that time is true, because it was 45 per
cent. ad valorem-equal to about S75 30
per ton. Assuming that Mr.. Blaine's
statement is true respecting the premium
on gold the duty in currency. which the
importer lad to pay after the estahl sh-
ment OF the duty of $2S per ton, was s36 40.
Now If Mr. Baine's other statement
about the price Of rails in England is
true then the new duty that was imposed
in 1870 was only 2lS0 per cent, ad va
lorpm. 1t is diff 'ult to see, therefore,
why ''the free trade journals" should nave
idtoCA GU CbO' A1OuS hONi vi OiosCuG IC-
spectlng the duty of S28 per ton. They
ouZht to have shouted for JOY because
of the reduction of more than one.half.
The high tariff is not entitled to the
credit of promoting the steel rail indus
try n this untry. Its development here
Is due to the expiration of the Bessemer
patent in 1S70-a fact, doubtless, which
Mr.. Blame well knows.
There is one statement Of Mr.. Blaiue's
relative to this steel rail business that ia
true. He said that the high tariff had
enabled the steel rail manufacturers of
this country to put $3.50, 900, 900 in their
pc ,ke's. How many Of these man.
uacturers are thoreg Not more
than handful, as it were.
and they are among the greatest monopo-
lists OF the country. Did they paw their
workmen extraordinary wages? Did they
say to the mFnswho made the rails, We
are making millions out Of this business
and will therefore divide with you bv in
creasIng your wages? They did nothing
OF the kind. On the contrary, they got
labor for as small a price as they could
and pocketed their enormous profits. Mr..
Blaine ought not to put the credulity OF
his audiences to too great test.