Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1888-05-12
Mr. scstt's Speech.

Mr. Scstt's Speech.
Mr.. William l.. Scott has delivered in
Congress carefully prepared essay upon
The revenue, which occupied over two
hours In the delivery and which attracted
close attention from the members,
not only because Of its mat.
tx but because of Mr.. Scott's
we'll understood close relations with
THE president, whose views 1t was be-
lisved that he would express. An alb.
stract was telegraphed us in advance Of
dslivery, but we do not suppose that it
gives good idea Of what was said, the
npeech being largely statistical and as IL
dealS chiefly with the Pennsylvania inter.
ssts affected by the tariff we may have
occasion for future reference to it.
Mr.. Scott starts out with the declara
tlon that the constitution does not
authorize the laying of protective duties.
He makes three propositions on this
point, which all amount to the same thing,
namely. that there is constitutional
authority for levyipg taxes for revenue
only; and his broad statement seem TO
deny authority even for incidental pro.
lection.
Nevertheless, as he proceeds in his
essay, Mr.. Scott declares that he has ex-
amined and approved every word of the
Mills bill, which does not, he says, re.
duce the present protective duties more
than s per cent. on an average, and he
expresses great surprise on this showing
that it's supporters should be charged
with being free traders.
We quite agree with Mr.. S ,ott that the
Mills bill is not free trade measure;
but We do not share his surprise that he
should be called free trader, after de-
clasing that protective duties are uncon-
ntitutional. He does not sufficiently ex.
plain that the theoretical constitution
has been amended by the practical inter
probation Of hundred years, 80 as to es-
tablish protective duties that must be
very gradually removed.
Mr.. Scott denounces Mr.. Randall's
tariff bill in strong terms and declares
thatit increases instead Of lowering du.
ties. We agree with him that Mr.. Ran
dall's bill is misshapen, though we do not
understand that it increases duties gen.
orally 1t decreases them, bu. not to the
extent OF the Mills bill, though that, nc.
cording to Mr.. Scott, takes off but per
cent.
We do not agree with Mr.. Scott that
the purpose Of Mr.. Randall's bill was .'to
obstruct the Democratic party" We
beli0ve that Mr.. Randall is sincere In his
opinion and has at least as great devo-
ton, as Mr.. Scott, to the Democratic
party, to which he has given the energy
d. his life.
Mr.. Scott had much more justification
Tor his assault upon Mr.. Carnegie, as a
poor friend of the workingmen of whom he
Assumes to be the friend, but whose wages
be reduces while making a large profit
out Of their labor. Mr.. Scott finds that
there Is profit of five dollars a ton in
tho making of steel rails at present
prices, and o very extravagant profit In
making beams. He does not seem how.
ever to be very careful statistician
and he has left out of the calculation ele
ments that naturally affect it. Steel rails
certainly can be made at profit at present
prices In we'll located and well managed
mills and steel beams are undoubtedly
maintained at an extravagant price by
combination; but we cannot accept
Mr.. Sc0tt's calculation Of the profit made
when he shows such carelessness as to
declare that only eight per cent. of the
value Of steel beam is in its labor. 1t
II true that the value of coal at the mine
y nearly all in the labor, as the land
owners royalty is the other chidf element
of cost. and that is but 10 to Is cents ton
on bituminous coal and 35 to so cents on
anthracite:sbut the value OF a ton OF fiE-
ashed ironrepresents the labor in produc.
Ing tho coal, ore and limestone that make
The pig iron, and the coal that converts
the pig iron into steel and heats it to make
y Into a beam,l beside the labor
directly employed in making the pig.
Iron, the steel and the beam, in.
cluding the labor in transporting
them, which embraces a portion
OF the labor employed in making the
ntlroad and its rolling stock. 1t is
wrong to say that the division of the cost
OF , steel beam between capital and labor
- In the proportion of 92 to s. Mr.. Car
negies profit need not be exaggerated to
be shown to be extravagant.