The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-09-05

Returning to starch, Mr.. Phelps quotes
figures to show that the average difference
in the value of starch imported into and
exported from the United States during
the last four years was lisa cents per
pound. How he can reconcile these bg-
ures with his statement that the duty does
not increase the price of starch to the DO
mestic consumer, we do not pretend to
guess. Probably he doesn't try; mOnop-
oily takers rarely attemps to make their
assertions about the tariff harmonic. 1t
is sufficient to saw that one of these two
statements is necessarily false. Which
is it, Mr.. Phelps?
Once more:
Mr.. Mills and his disciples like THE SENT1-
NELL, who advocate foreign control OF our
American markets, say that what we lose by our
increase of imports, we will gain by an IN
crease of exports. Let see how this doc
trine will work with starch. What new foreign
markets does Mr.. Mills propose to open 10
which we can export starch under more favor
able auspices than now? Perhaps THE SENTI-
MEL is not aware that thirty OF the principal
countries and provinces OF the world levy an
import duty upon starch produced In the
United States, yet such is the fact. The aver
age rate of duty on starch of these thirty
countries is Isl cents per pound, or .5I oil
cent per pound higher than Mr.. Mills proposes
in his bill. The following table may be OF In
terest in this connection.
Here follows a table showing the duties
levied on starch in thirty countries.
Among them we do not find the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
nor Belgium. nor Holland. nor Denmark,
nor NORWAY, nor several other European
countries having an aggregate population
of over 100000. 1t is possible some
American starch might be sold in these
countries, which admit it free in view n
the fact that in our domestic markets our
manufacturers will be protected under the
Mills bill to the extent OF four times the
cost of labor.
We have covered every proposition adj
vanced by Mr.. Phelps. We have devoted
much more space to this effusion than the
intrinsic importance OF the subject merits,
because the alleged arguments he advances
are those in use by the monopoly takers
every where. Now,we want to say few
words about the starch industry, its pres
sent condition and the relations the tariff
bears to it.
The census returns indicate that starch
manufacturing has been a very profitable
business in the past. That it is not pecu-
liarly profitable now we have every rea-
son to believe. We have no doubt that
Mr.. Phelps tells the truth for once when
he SAYS that "there is not starch con-
Germ in the United States that paid
greater dividend than s per
cent. last YEAR" that "at least eight
of them paid no dividends at all, and
have not paid any for years." and that
he knows of "seven starch factories which
can be bought for one-haf the cost of
the plant" Why are these things true?
1t is not on account OF foreign competl-
ton, because the American manufacture
ers have had an absolute monopoly of
the home market, as Mr.. Phelps admits.
The importations are purely nominal-he
puts them at per cent. OF the consump-
ton. The expectations are great deal
larger than the importations. So
that the American starch factories
more than supply the entire home con-
sumption. Foreign starch cuts no figure
whatever, according to Mr.. Phelps him
self. What, then, is the difficulty? Well,
it is very clear. The starch business has
been protected" to death. This often
happens under an exorbitant tariff. The
business was made so profitable by an ex-
cessive tariff that it has been overdOne,
and the result is that the capacity of our
starch factories is much greater than the
consuming capacity OF the country. 1t is
a case of Over-production, brought about
by undue tariff stimulation. Our factories
supply the entire home demand, and have
a surplus left, and then do not begin to
run to their full capacity. Every intelli-
gent starch manufacturer understands the
situation perfectly, and knows that he has
nothing to fear from foreign competition
under the Mills bill. Every honest one
admits this, and admits also that all the
talk to the contrary is pure humbug.
We fancy from our investigation OF
the subject that very large export
business in starch is never to be ex-
pected under any tariff system, although
it would doubtless improve if the Mills
bill became q law, because the cost OF
machinery, buildings, ETC., would be re-
duced, placing our home manufacturers
more nearly on par with their foreign
rivals in these regards. But, as MIR.
Phelps says, the starch industry is do
nestle industry, pure and simple" 1t is
so in other countries as well as In this.
Most countries which grow corn or pota-
toes are going to make the bulk OF the
starch for their own consumption.
A leading starch manufacturer OF Indiana
writes THE SENTINEL:
The starch manufacturers as rule are salts
fed with the Mills bill. They have nothing to
fear from foreign competition. Foreign max
ers will not contest for the trade. There have
been no great profits in the starch business for
several years on account of over-production.
In conclusion we beg to ask Mr.. Phelps
the following questions, and he can have
reasonable space in THE SENTINEL to reply
TO them if he desires to:
1. If the tariff regulates wages, why do
wages differ so greatly in different states
of the Union-in Indiana and Maine, for
instance?
2. Why are the wages of Indiana starch
workers larger and the labor cost of
starch in Indiana smaller than in other
states?
8. If, as you say, the tariff does not IL
crease the cost OF starch to the consumer,
how does it help the manufacturer, or
enable him to pay higher wages or better
prices for corn2
4. Ii the tariff does not enable the
manufacturer to get better prices, how can
its reduction injure him?
5. If the tariff does enable the manu-
facturers to get hotter prices, who pays
those prices If not the consumer
6. Ii tariff increases wages, why is it
that, according to your own statemept, the
starch-workers in Germany-which PRO
tects" starch-get the same wages as the
starch-workers in England, which has
starch on the free list
z. Do not the foreign manufacturers OF
starch pay more for their raw materials
than the domestic manufacturers
s. Are not the latter at some disadvan-
tage because OF the increased cost of their
buildings, machinery, ETC., caused by the
tariff And would not the Mills bill re-