St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-07-24
THE DIFFERENCES.


TO the Editor of the Globe.
l am an Independent Republican who
haS faith in the GLOBE because it always
aims to be fair and honest in its state
ments: therefore l ask that you explain
Through your columns the differences in
detail between the MILLS bill and the
eXiSting tariff law, and to state candidly
whether the MILLS bill is measure in
the interest of free trade or whether
any of the changes proposed by it will
be hurtful to labor. By complying with
this request you will oblige number of
your readers who have been lost in the
completely of the tariff problem. II.
Fergus Falls, July %.
Our correspondent has asked the
GLOBE to do hard thing when he re-
quests us to explain in detail the differ
ences between the MILLS bill and the
present tariff law, because the protec-
Eonists have made the high tariff so
extraordinarily complex that it is next
TO impossible for common intelligence
to understand it. But if our CORE
SpOndent and other readers who are in
terested in discussion of this subject
will have the patience to follow us we
think we can demonstrate that the
MILLS bill is neither hurtful to labor
nor in the interest of free trade; for but
few industries will be affected by it, and
the duties in those but slightly reduced.
We speak intelligently and honestly
when we say that the fundamental idea
of the MILLS bill is to increase the pros
perity of the people at large without in
i1icting injury upon any legitimate in
dustry, and in support of this PROPOSE
tion we invite careful comparison of
its provisions with the existing law.
To begin, we take a glance at list of
Industries which are untouched by the
MILLS bill, which stand precisely in
this measure as they stand in the pres
ent law, and no change is proposed in
the duty on the products of these indus
tries. The unchanged list includes bas-
ketmakers, bookbinders and fnishers,
bone and ivory workers, boot and shoe
makers, brewers and maltSters, button
manufacturers, candlemakerS, cigarmak-
ers, clock and watch makers and repair
ers, cooperS, copper workers, corsetmak-
ers, cutters. distillers and rectifiers, fish
ermen. fiaX-dresserS, fur-workers, glove
makers, gold and silver jewelers., gum
smiths and lOcksmiths, harness ana sad
die makers, hat and cap makers, hosiery
and knitting mill operators, leather cur
rierS and makers of leather goods, lace
makers, miners, mirror and picture
framemakerS, organ makers, paper-mill
operators. piano forte makers and tun-
ers, preserved meats, rubber goods max
ers, screwmakers. scale and rule makers,
shirt, cuff and collar makers, shawls,
silk mill operators, straw workers, tiles,
common and fire brick makers, trunk,
yaliSe and carpet makers, tobacco fac
tory operators, umbrella and parasol
makers, stove, furnace and CRATE max
ers, various farm products, hay, hops,
barley, cattle, sheep, hogs.
Thus it will be seen that what is pop
ularly known as the small industries. in
VIII, h the great bulk of artisans are
employed, and i'll which the labor cost
bears the greatest proportion to the cost
of the finished product, are untouched
by the pending measure. You will be
wise to cut out this list and paste it in
your hat, to show the Republican orators
when they come around this fall to tell
the workingmen that the MILLS bill is a
free trade measure and is intended to
hurt the workingmen. All the indus
tries that merit protection are protected
by the MILLS bill.
Now to consideration of the sched-
ules in which changes have been made.
Again we are prepared to demonstrate,
by comparison of the MILLS bill with
the law now in force, that the
changes proposed by the former
are not hurtful to labor, nor
are they in the direction of free trade
In the following list of employments
the MILLS bill proposes to lower the
duties slightly, but in almost every case
the raw material is to be placed ON the
free list, while the duty on the product
is lowered much less than the equiya
lent of the raw material made free. The