Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1888-10-16

suit in the entire humiliation OF the in
ternal revenue system. the entire aboli-
ton of the tax on liquor and tobacco.
The speaker said it was not his purpose
or desire to question the right of any man
to act as he pleased with regard to the
use of alco holic beverages, to touch it or
leave it alone as he pleased, but the
speaker did not want to see the day when
this government would place free whisky |
to the lips of his son. What is the ben
eft or profit TO come from having tobac>
CO and whisky free? Is it not much bet
ter to have q reduction in the cost of |
clothes, furniture, lumber, glass and those
things which are of necessary use in this |
life9 There is not republican. Mr..
Scofield asserted. that does not know |
that the republican platform would be |
better without that free tobacco, free |
whisky plank. 1t does not as a matter
of fact meet the appreciation of the re-
Cleveland's policy as reflected by the
Mills bill provides. instead of reduction
on whisky and tobacco. reduction on
the necessaries of life.
He met the repu blican accusation that
the Mills bill pressged the reduction of
the price of labor. 1t could be
shown how labor would be res
duced in price under its passage, he
would not favor it. On the contrary he
argued by the presentation Of statistics
that the Mills bill promised direct benefit
to labor and increase in its price. He
gave in support of this declaration
practical illustration. He advanced the
supposition that there is no iron ore, no
furnaces and no mills in this country. A
Rock Island county farmer discovers a
deposit of iron ore on his farm. He has
desire to develop the new resource, but
he is naturally inexperienced, and he
goes to Washington and consults with his
congressman and through his influence
gets bill through congress which re-
csives the presidents approval and be-
comes a law. placing such high tariff on
foreign Importations of iron that it will
give him the opportunity to produce and
manufacture the iron on his place at
profitable income The next time far
mer who has not this natural resource on
his farm goes to town to buy iron, he
finds it has increased in price, and
upon investigation ascertains that the
import price has been raised to keep out
the foreign product that this one fortu-
nate mans industry may be protected.
So it is with every other farmer in this
country who has not such an industry TO
develop. They must all pay more for
their iron in order that this one man may
be protected in competing with the iron
industries of Europe. 1t is so with the
tariff upon all industries; it affords pro-
lection aud benefit solely to those who
are developing resources and managing
industries and it benefits no one else
The production of ton of pig iron in
England, including every item of ex-
pense, amounts to s3.l7; the production
of the same ton of pig iron in Pittsburgh
amounts to IS 10; difference of S2.01
in favor of the English iron. The cost
, to the English manufacturer to bring thai
ton to America is S., which with the origi
l nal cost of production brings the amour
2 up to SIS II as against the IS. IS cost O
D the Pittsburgh iron. But this is not all
t there is a tariff of 81 per ton on pig irol
which brings the actual cost per ton u
to Sl517 when it is landed in New York
while the Pittsburgh manufacturer ha
D paid but S5.1s for the quitting of tn
o same ton on the American market. Whs
e will be the result? The natural conse
n quence may be inferred; the Pittsburgh
II manufacturer can bring the price of hi
d iron up to within fifty cents of the pric
: per ton the English producer will nece:
d sarily have to charge and yet underse
e him, and the difference between what /
gets and the cost of producton-S5 49,
g. is his profit. That is his protection, 1
l. the government gives it to him. That
y his gain and who pays i'll Who woul
ID be the sufferer if the English iron wei
J. admitted at such reduction in tariff
g. to bring down the protective duty Thu
v the Pittsburgh iron manufacturers prof
IN the people of this country who buy Il
re iron, or the Pittsburgh manufacturer wi
i'd sells it at q very large protectiy
r profitF
ID On this principle cannot the iron indu
\ tries of America to submit to reduction
c. 81 per ton as the Mills bill provides and y
~ survive and pay the same price to lab
% they do today and yet retain a lar
OF profitH Yet with all this profit Above
It. the protected industries of America und
Mt the present system of tariff taxation, |
d. Dor is not paid what it ought to be. T
be reduction of tariff duties therefore wou
ty not effect labor one whit. If the lumb
ps duty were reduced it wouldn't hurt wag
or or effect any one in Rock Island unle
hit he be an owner of timber lands. and
m might lose the 80 per thousand he M
D. gets.
gu Mr.. Scofield spoke of the first tai
Us reduction in As and AZ, of f
Gil per cent on the general svera
mt Every New England representative
INT congress opposed the proposition II
US on the ground that it would be ru
Try Gus to this country. The bill neverthel
'm became law. and it did not paraly
ng business or starve labor. On the &C
'iu trsry, wages at once increased 2St |
on cent and capital increased 1913 per cent
sou over the country. Articles of use and C,
lon sumption were cheaper and consequer
le- demand increased and labor increased 6
I'LL wages were higher. What was anot
'n' resultf In 1856, the treasury being az
uie too full. second proposition to red
IL the tariff, this time five per cent. was s.