Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1888-07-25
PASSAGE OF THE MILLS BILL.

10th. r. B. POORE, of Appomattox.
PASSAGE OF THE MILLS BILL.
On Saturday last, Mr. Mills, of Texas,
Chairman of the committee of Ways and
Means that reported the bill for the reduc-
ton of the tariff taxes, which has engrossed
80 much of the time and attention of con-
gress and excited so much interest through
out the country, made the concluding speech
on that bill, afterswhich it was submitted to
a vote as whole and was adopted by a
vote of 1862 ayes to 149 nays.
The vote was strictly partisan, with the
following exceptions: Democrats against
the bill-Messrs. Bliss, Of New York :;
Greenman, of New York; Merriman, of
New York, and Sowden, of Pennsylvania.
Republicans for the bill-Messrs. Ander-
son, of Iowa; Fitch, of New York; Wilson,
of Minnesota; Smith, of Wisconsin (Ind.
Rep). Mr.. Foran, of Ohio (Dem.), refrain
ed from voting.
AS the Alex. Gazette says 1.-THE Demo-
cratic party has, through its Presidential
nominee, its national convention, and
through its representatives in the U. S.
House of Representatives, by the passage
of the Mills bill, proved to the people of
the country that it is for the good of the
many rather than for that of the few, that
it is in favor of equal benefits to all and of
special favors to Done, that it desires to re-
duce the cost of living to that large ma
jority of the population who are compelled
to earn their bread by the sweat of their
faces, that 1t wants to enlarge the market
for American products SO that an increased
demand for those products may increase the
demand and necessarily the price of Amer
lean labor, and, finally, that as revenue has
to be raised to meet the necessary expenses
of government, it deems it wise and just
that that revenue should be raised by tax
on luxuries-on articles that people can do
without if they choose, rather than on those
which they have to consume in order to
live. On each and every one ofthese points
the democratic, is opposed by the republican
party. 1t is for the voters, the people most
interested, to decide which Of the parties is
the more deserving of their support, and
the success of which will most rebound to
their benefit"
The N. Y. Herald advises workingmen
to examine the bill with care and to observe
the changes it makes in the present tariff,
and expresses the confident belief that
whoever may do this will be no moro delu6-
ed with the cry of ''free trade" and that
he will see, on the contrary, that the bill
has teen drawn with the greatest care for
the protection Of workingmen.
In the first place the workiDgman will
find that forty-seven industries, most of
them like those in leather, silk, cutlery,
straw workers, stoves, furnaces and CRATES
employments where the labor is the largest
element in the cost of the product, and
where, accordingly, the laborer's interest
is greaiest-are absolutely untouched by
the Mills bill. The rates of duty are not
changed, but remaia precisely as fixed in
tho present tariff.
That certainly is not Stree trade as
every workman can see for himself
Then he will fad, further, another large
number of important industries where again
the labor forms a large part Of the cost to
the produet In these the raw material
has been made duty free by the Mills bill,
and the present duties on the product have
been lessened, but in every case it will be
found that the reduction in duty on the pro-
duct is less than the gain by free raw mate
rial. 1t is evident that in such cases the
workman gets even higher protection than
under the present tariff, and will have
steadier employment and better wages.
Finally, there are numerous articles of
common and universal household use on
which the present tariff, in the interest of
capitalist monopolsts. lays very high duties.
Here the Mills bill has substituted moderate
duties in the general interest Of the people.
Thus paint oils are cut down, so are ham,
mers, files, horseshoe nails, starch, wire,
common window glass, thread and many
other articles.
Is there any reason why starch should
bear the monstrous duty OF eighty two per
cent? Or why saws should be taxed forty
per cent? Or why common rope should be
taxed thirty per cent? Or why paint oils
should be taxed fifty-five Per cent? Is it
not an outrage that such articles of univer-
sal use should have been singled out to be
made the objects Of protected" monopo-
lies? Is it not an outrage that while the
Treasury is OVERLOOKING with the peoples
taxes meu should stand up in Congress and
oppose the reductian Of such needless and
extortionate taxes on articles of universal
use and of absolute necessity?
tGiye us free whiskey," the republican
protectiopists cry out, "rather than cheaper
tools, cheaper clothes, cheaper houses.
Give us free whiskey, but make the poor
washerwoman continue to pay eighty two
per cent extra on her starch, the carpenter
forty per cent extra on his saws, the painter
fifty per cent extra on his linseed oil, the
blacksmith seventy-six per cent extra on
his horseshoe nails. "Cry out free trade,
they add, against any Que who Offers to
lower these extortionate duties only o
little
Can party stand in this country on such
ground as that? Can wcrkiDgmen be de
ceived against their own most vital inter-
ests by such outcries? We do not believe
1t.
Captain Bumgardner hit the nail plump
on the head in his speech before the Demo-
cratic Club Thursday night when he said
the needs of agricultural and manufactur-
ing interests were wider commerce, and
not the levying of higher taxes, already
more than necessary, On production, which
at last hsd to be paid by the people. Col
lect, he said, no moro than the needs of the