Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-01-06

ments, clothing and furniture and the
multitudes of other articles of use and
luxury, works of American mechanics,
had been brought within the means of the
great masses of the American people. To
reduce the duty on these foreign luxuries
would be to transmit the burden Of taxa-
ton from those who bore it willingly to
the
SHOULDERS OF TEE PEOPLE.
II the object were to reduce the surplus
revenue what better mode could be sug-
gested than to repeal one-half the duty
on sugar, and thus directly relieve the
people from $2S. 250, 900 taxes on an ar
ticle of general use and now bearing
tax of 81 per cent. Efforts to proouce
sugar in the United States in qqantities
at oil approaching the demand had failed,
though protected by the highest tariff
rates. Still in view of the hopeful pros
! pect of producing sugar from beets and
sorghum cane as well as from sugar
cane he would not cripple that industry
by reducing the protective duties on
sugar by giving the producers of domestic
sugar bounty equal to the reduction OF
| duty on the imported article. The greet
body OF crude articles imported which
entered into the domestic industry to the
duty. Duties averaging 80 per cent.
were now levied upon imported articles
| that competed directly with the develop
| ment Of
AMERICAN PRODUCTS
! valued at $59, 500 900, and which yielded
) a revenue Of $40, 500, 900. The chief of
them were agricultural products, wool,
fax, hemp and other textile grasses, hog
bristles and seeds, valued at $50, 900, 900
and yielding revenue OF $40, 100000 or
less than 80 per cent. The remainder
was chic fly metals in ore or pigs. local and
marble of the value Of $2s, 800 900 and
yielding S9,250, 900. These imports
| come into direct competition
with the productions OF nearly 10000, 900
American farmers and Of hundre s Of
thousands OF laboring men. This mod
crate protection given to labor and CAPT
tai employed in mining and agricultural
Industries was the favorite point of as
sault by the President and all free trad
ers upon the protective policy. No reason
could be given why wool should be made
free and WOODEN goods should
be protected. II there must be
cheap wool there must be cheap
woolens, and il the labor of the farmer
in producing wool was not protected
against undue competition with Australia
or Bennos AYres then that Of the cloth
maker
SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED
against competition with the looms OF
| Manchester and Lyons. The farmers
performed as valuable labor as the
artisans, and the rights of every producer
should have equal and just consideration
without fear or faver. The President had
especially selected wool as IN article not
to be protected.
His whole argument rested on the ALE
CATION that the price CT wool WAS in
creased to the Xtent of the duty, that out
for the duty the merchant could buy wool
cheaper In South America and Australia.
This argument wss fallacious, because
the destruction OF the wool industry in
the United States would at once advance
the price Of wool in foreign markets
But even if the argument were true,
it would apply az we'll to all domestic
productions and
TO ALL MANUFACTURERS.
Wool was the completed article of the
farmer just as cloth was OF the manufac-
turer and as cost was of the tailor, and
the objection that the duty on wool raised
the price to the consumer applied as well,
If true, to the duty On cloth and or every
article on the tariff list. The all-sufficien;
answer was thst the duty encouraged
the production of wool, the manu-
fscture OF clothes and of an initiate
variety of articles produced by American
labor competing with foreign labor. II
had always seemed to me a most narrow
and selfish notion, that made on behalf
of advanced industries, that they must
! Ilor To n hQi @ ia1 6
in the cheapest markets Of the world
He regarded the home production of raw
materials as even of
MORE IMPORTANCE THAN MANUF ;CTURES
Turning from raw materials to manu-
factures, Mr.. Sherman ssid the imports
not On the free list and not classed by
him as Injuries Or raw materials
amounted in value to $216, coo, 900, and
paid sS4, OOO,O 900. These importations
came into direct competition with do
nestle manufacturing, which had been
mainly built up by the encourage meIt OF
the tariff laws. Scarcely eny OF them
had existed in the United States when
the constitution was formed. Since
then they had f3urished or foundered
by the changing OF the rates of the reve-
nue. laws. A careful revision OF the rates
had been made by the tariff commission
of 1882. All branches OF domestic indus
try had become adapted to these rates. 1t
was this system which vas denounced by
the President as vicious and inequitable
and illogical. That denunciation was
aimed at the principle of protection.
The President assumed that the duty on
imported articles was added to the price
of similar articles of home production,
but such was not the fact. In the alb
sence of domestic competition the i'm
porter fixed his own price and added the
duty and freight expenses to the cost, but
st the first sign of American competition
THE PRICE WAS REDUCED,
and often in stringent market the goods
were sold at far less than the original
cost and duty. As rule imported
goods competing with American goods
were sold in the American market cheaper
than in the European market, duties ad-
ded. In the great body Of articles form
erly imported American manufacture was
well established and under domestic COM
petition the price was reduced to figure
approaching European rates.
This process was now going on. Home
| competition, whenever 1t got foothold,
reduced prices and lessened importation.
The most remarkable example OF that
was in the production of glassware, pot
| terry and chinaware, which had
become established industries in
| this country. BE quoted Mr..
Dudly, late Consul General at Liverpool.
to the effect that there is not single
| manufactured commodity thst is not