The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-10-22
THE MILLS BILL
His Pretensions as the Wage-Earners'
and Farmers Friend Now Exploded.
A Randall Democrats Views of the Men Who
Are Trying to Drive Away Needed Capital
and Enterprise from This State.

as q friend Of the wage Garner and farmer In his
support OF the Mills bill. is having his preten-
sions badly exploded by the men who have &C.
casion to study markets more than maxims. c.
A. Scott, of the firm OF Scott & Co., ;ron-roofng
manufacturers, of Cincinnati, O., q Randall
Democrat, who will vote for Harrison and Nor
ton. was here yesterday, and in conversation
with . Journal reporter took occasion to refuts
o few Of the Misrepresentation which chat con-
gressional~ champion OF free trade is spreading
throughout this district. THAT you may see ]
have had occasion to study Mr.. Bynum's state
ments closely" said Mr.. Scott, ~ beg leave to
remind you that I was one Of a party Of gentle
men vino, last spring, negotiated with the of
fcers Of your Consumers Natural-gas Com
pany aad other citizens for the purpose
Of locating a rollilg-mil plant in your
city to make shest-iron and sheet-sieel. Later
on another company entered into Q similar ne
gotiation for tie planting of another sheet roll
ing-mill here. The two would have disbursed
over 81 900 per day to the wage-esrners of this
city. The Mills bill suspended all negotiations
The projectors of these enterprises. being prac-
tical men, knew we'll that neither sheet-iron nor
steel could be manufactured here to successfully
confront free tin plates in the markets, except
at a reduction Of labor cost below the foreign
standard Of SIS per ton less, or one-third OF
what it Is here"
s'Ars you disposed to hold Mr.. Bynum re-
sponsible for the failure of these enterprisesf'
81 am to the extent OF his influence in the
support of the Mills bill, and I look upon his
record in that respect as damaging to the best
interests Of this vicinity. Was it not
IN the nature of mutual prosperity to
your section, your wageearners, your farm
ers and the projectors OF these enterprises
that these rollins mills should be plantedl Was
IL not aiding and abetting the guidance Of legis-
tation adverse to your section that engaged MIR.
Bynums CO cooperation for the passage OF the
Mills bill that preeluded the settlements OF
these rolline-mills in yorr localityi Was he not
assisting in pulling down what your negotiations
were building upl Mr. Bynum's vote for free
tin-plates places him on record in opposition to
the manufacture of tin plate here. We made
them once, but the duty being inadequate and
less than other articles in the shest-metal sched-
ule, enabled English competition to bank the
fires Of our four tin-plate mills, In consequence
OF an lncongruitya assessing tin-plates only 81
per cent. duty, when the iron Of which they were
made was assessed IS per cent. The restora-
ton of this industry would add one hundred
sheet rolling mills TO our capacity, which, taken
ir connection with our present capacity for
eheet-iron and steel manufacture, that free tin
plates would destroy, would employ over 10000
persons, with an annual payroll $40, 600, 600, or
$50, 000, 600 annual value of production"
What is your opinion OF Mr.. Bynum's a-gu-
ment in favor of RENTING duties on raw mate
YlalF
'I consider I. specious and unsound. Mr..
Bynum pleads cheaper material for the wage
earners of his district. to enable them to secure
a larger market In which TO sell their d products.
The cheaper materials OF Mr.. Bynumis phrase
ology include che corollary of delivery from the
forests and mines in the cratuities Of the wage
earners emolumsnts. The term raw materials
Is a misnomer in dialects, when the magic
touch of human laboris required TO develop pro-
duct:on for the hand that last held them. In
the usual division OF labor the unfinished prod
net of one man becomes the raw material OF
bis industrial successor. IL each man insists
that every article he buys shall be considered
raw material and placed on the free list, and
that every article which he sells shall be .
nanufactu red product aud protected. a practi-
cal solution of the problem Of tariff construction
is impossible.
ma. Dynum is willing 10 answer to 5000
farmers concerning his fidelity in demanding a
reduction of taxes upon everything thoy con-
snme. This - another assumption conspicuous
for its paucity of reasoning and argument.
What taxes and reductions does he make farm
ers the heuefcisries Oft 1t is not on protective
duties. for those do not tax the consumer.
Where he pays no tax none can be collected.
hence, 10 reduction OF taxes where none exist.
Let the farmer compute his annual purchase by
the percentage on the commodities after allow
ing the manufacturer 10 TO 10 per cent. for le-
climate expenses and he will realize that the
cry OF reduction of taxes is q sham and a myth.
The only increase over foreign prices goes to the
wsge-earners. who largely create the home
market. Let the farmer then con-
sider the loss Of his homo market by
an augmented competition; then determine the
policy of letting the tariff 60. Dir. Bynum says
that the farmers inquire why they should be
taxed upon everything they consume, while
they must find a market abroad for their sur
plus products The surplus products Is a mere
bsgatelle IN comparison to the home market
which he charaetsriZes a stale pretext which
scarcely merits notice. that consumes 90 per
cent. of So, coo. 600. 600 products OF the farm, Tex
cepting cotton and tobacco; leaving only 8 per
cent. scaTecrow OF q surplus for the foreign
markets Howsver, mos. farmers with small
farms do not raise the staple crops for export.
Their reliance Is on such products as small fruits
and vegetables, that could only find sale In a
near home market. This class OF farmers would
be utterly ruined by free trade. / challenge
free-trade doctrinaries to name an epoch of pro-
tective duties that did not decrease the cost OF
manufactured commodities to the farmer, and
increase the price of his products"
What proportion Of wags-earners are en-.
p.oyed In this country in protected industries"
Nearly 3,000,0 900. Mr.. Bynum misreprssents
when he states that the great body of wage
workers are not employed 10 industries fostsred
by the tariff; more than four-ffths of them are
at work on unprotected vocarions, and that it
Is safe to estimate that not more than a million
persons are employed in manufactures which
OAA 49, ethFhN " u nuVn
he ssys again: 'Suppcsing that all are men of
families, not more than five millions are sup-
ported from wages derived from industries fos-
tered by protection This is emphatically I'M
true. Such reckless statements are unpardon-
aOle; o careful analysis OF the census and tariff
schedule, clearly proves that over 2, 800. 900 wage
earners are engaged in projected industries at
this period, giving allowance for increase since
1880. allowing five to each one for family
exhibit, would aggregate nearly thirteen millions
supported by protection. More than that,
the farmer 10 protected by tho tariff at
as high q percentage as the home COM
petition allows the manufactures. His wheat
is protected 20 cents per bushel against
the pauper labor OF 9 cents a day in In
dia and the encroachments of cheap labor from
Canada. Corn, oats. rye and barley 10 cents
per bushel, 10 cents a bushel on potatoes. 81 per
ton on hay, ETC., yet about $50, 600. 600 annual
importations of farm products continue 10 flow,
which should be stopped"
What do you look for in the event of the
passage of the Mills bill or similar legislation by
the next Congressf'
Il anticipate trouble in the event of any fur
Their strides In that direction. The man who
has an indebtedness on his home or farm will
be douoly taxed TO meet it, for with low prices
and wages q dollar will be as difficult to obtain
as two are now. / have not time to refer to
half the ~fallaeies that Mr.. Bynum is seeking to
impress as truth upoE the voters OF this con-
congressional district, but lido not propose that
any one shall be deceived by them if they desire
the facts. i have in press a pamphlet, which
Will De distributed gratuitouely, and in which
bis speech, setting forth that a reduction OF
duties Will not reduce wages is carefully re-