The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-08-31
THE CROCKRRY TARIFF.
Senator Faulkner and other FREQ Traders
Challenged to Meet the Solid Facts.

senator Faulkner and other FREQ Traders
Challenged to Meet the Solid Facts.
TO he Editor Of he LIicRtOeaeer.
sIR:-In reading the report of Senator
Faulkner's speech, delivered Wednesday
evening at the Capitol rink, the part that
related tc pottery and glassware amused
me very much. y
lam of the opinion that the Senator
did not know what he was talking about,
or is guilty Of misrepresenting what his
party proposed to do through tue Mills
bill. He tries to show that the Mills bill
makes no material change in the duty on
croCkery, and quoted the New York
Journal Of Commerce as authority. Who
and what is the Journal Of C0mmcFCgI
One OF the rankest Free Trade papers in
the country, published in the interest OF
importers, And why he. quotes that
paper, cannot understand. Why did
he not quote the bill itself? 1t is au-
thority enough, l think, simple aud
plain.
] would like to submit few figures
that any person knowing anything at all
about arithmetic can readily understand,
and then see that Senator Faulkner tried
to deceive the voters Of Wheeling, and
that the New York Journal of Commerce
simply lies.
0fcourse you know the present rate Of
duty is 81 per cent on the class OF goods
chiefly made by American potteries, and
that the Mills bill is reduction to 50
per cent, reinstating the "package
clause"
II you were to purchase two crates OF
ware in England that cost 500, ut the
present rate OF duty the custom house
officers at New York would collect how
much tariff? Just $50. Now II you were
TO buy the same amount OF goods under
the Mills bill, how much would they
collect? Thirty-iive dollars, plus 50 per
cent OF the cost OF packages. Now this
is where the package clause" comes in.
The term "package clause" has been a
very consoling term for Democrats to
use when you talk to them about the
reduction on pottery proposed by the
Mills bill. They ask you with lots OF
assurance, as II they knew what they
were talking about, and with evident
pleasure and satisfaction at the thought
that they have caught you in trap,
GLOW about the package clause? Has
it not been reinstated, and does it not
more than even up things?"
The package clause simply means this:
that IS per cent will be charged OH the
price OF the packages.
How much would the packages cost
containing $l00 worth OF ware? Do you
think they would cost over Sc? Eng
lish dinner sets cost anywhere from So
to $50 each. Don't you think that two
crates or packages, costing s. each,
ought to contain eight dinner sets?
Crates cost from g to s., and we will
suppose 50 to be the outside cost for two
packages. Now - per cent of So is 50 10;
30 per cent OF 500 or S35 90 plus 81 10
makes $37 10.
Under the present tariff the duty
would be 500 90 and under the Mills bill
it would be S37 10.
The difference is $l7 90. What part OF
$50 is SIT 90? The answer will be 80 So
per cent, the actual reduction proposed
by the Mills bill.
II will now be in order for Senator
Faulkner, the Register or the Free Trade
New York Journal of Commerce TO get
around this little bit Of plain arithmetic
and show that l am wrong. Can they?
| would like to know from them or any
person else. 2ASD2 MAKE 4.
Wheeling, august 80, 1883.