Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-10-16
MILLS SPEECH.
TCoatinued from First Pdge.1

Continued from First Page.
price last year was $50. Is; the average
American price for the same time was
~. ID; the difference in price, SIS 81; tariff
duty, $l7! Now, if the Steel Rail Asso-
citation could make rails Is cheap in the
United States In 1873 81 they could be
made in England, they could do it in
1881, and the Sl6.9 z difference in price
Tas put in the pockets Of the marutac-
Iursr. 1t is claimed to be in the interest
Of tho lsborer, bat he only gets from $3 to
IS psr ton; the balance goes to the manu-
iacIurer to make ~mlllonaices Of men that
they may BAUD castles in Scotland and
20 coaching through her mountains. Zap
pause on the Democratic side.
We havs reduced the duty on steel rails
70 ST. psr ton. 1t il equivalent to more
than double the eGtu . labor cost Of the
rails. Why should not this reduction be
nade2 There Is but one rtply all along
the line. 1t IS free trade. On wood and
wooden ware we found the present rates
averaging Is per cent, and VIZ reduce them
To IL. Az pr cent. That Ii too small TO re-
Iuirs further notice.
On sugar We reduce the rate from ISIS
psr cent. to 81 81 par cent. Thus Is the
largest reduction made on any schedule
except the wooden. The reduction Of the
ceVenus on sugar proposed by the bill is
Sll, 759, 799, and excepting the WOODEN
schedule ls nearly twice as much as ali the
others combined. That is q heavy cut,
out nobody seems to be distressed about II.
the complaint about sugar Is that We
did not reuuee enough. We have dealt
more Earshly with sugar than with any
article we have lett on the datiable
list. Yet gentlemen on the other slds
tell rs We have been sectional;
that we have protected sugar and
nee and aimed at the destruction Of
| Northern indnstriss The charge is alb
surd. We lave not looked at the section
where any altIcle Is Produced In order to
d,termine what We would do. We have
uled to deal fairly with all, and in doing
Il we ind that We cave cot it far heavier
than iron, or glass, or ssrLhen ware, or
Hoolens, or c~o,tons, or hemp, or jnts or
dax. In short, the cut on sugar ID nearly
twice rs much I'D all the others pat to-
geIher, except woolens. Applause. But,
On correct principles OF taxation, there
ought to be = higher duty on sugar than
on any other article on the dutiable list.
As Democratic, we believe hat q tax is q
tribute from the private property OF a clti-
zen exacted by law tor the support OF gov
eminent. We believe, with the commen-
tators and economists, that it Is q burden,
aud that il ought to be 50 laid as to be as
light S. possible on the taxpayer.
Now, MIR. Speaker, We get by the pres
snt duty on sugar and mclasses about
SIS, 0OO, 100 per annum. According to the
sstImate of the gentlemen on the other
side who offered toe amendment providing
Tor free sugar and q bounty to the sugar
grower, the present rate Of duty affords
~protscton to tae domestic sugar grower
EQUAL to IS, 900, 600; so that the whole cost
to the people Is $6i 900, 0OO. In order to
get S62, wv, COZ Of revenue from nanufac-
turers of iron and steel, and wooden and
cotton goods, the people have to pay
$500, OOO, 900 to $500, 000, 600. We pro-
duced in 1880 $6TO, 0OO, 900 OF all manu-
tactures of iron and steel. Ii is certainly
over 500, 900, 900 now. We produced
about SIS, W., 600 each Of cotton and
Soolen goods. These figures / have from
the Bureau of Statistics.
Now ii protection protects, and that ID
what 1t ID for, it increases the price OF the
domestic product nearly as much Is the
price of the imported product pld5 the
duty. This is admitted by the gentlemen
Who offered the proposition for the sugar
bounty and by those who supported him.
| This Is admitted by the constant arguments
made by the other side, that If We reduce
co;tons and woolens and iron and steel to
forty per cent. they will be ruined. This
argument admits they are getting more
kaan that now. OF these three branches OF
manufactures we are producing to-day
fully 81, 4OO, 000, 900 worth. If they are
protected 40 per cent. 1t costs the people
$500, 600, 600 to get $50, OO0,O "
Now, which is the better tax to keep,
the one that briggs $4,000, 600 with
IS, OOO, 900 Of bounty, or that which
| brings sec, 600, 900 of revenue with $780,
OOO, OOO Of bounty. Believing that q tax
is 3 burden, and mat it out to be a. light
a possible to the taxpayers, ! would keep
4 high duty on sugar aud lower the duties
On cotton goods, woolens, and msnufac-
lures OF iron and steel. II the rate OF Az
Der cent. on these three articles only
raised the price of the domestic produce
80 per cent. it would increase their cost to
tas people over $500, 600, 900. Why then
should we repeal the du'y on sugar end
Keep the high duties on the Others. The
duties on the others ought to be lowered
and the duty on sugar ought to be put at
The revenue standard and kept there.
The duty on provisions by existing law
Is "a 80 per cent =, and We leave IL at % 80.
The reduction is "a cents ON Q hundred
dollars. This Is q very moderate reduction.
We might have gone luther without In
Jury TO any interest.
The average rate Of duty on msnufsc-
lures Of cotton by existing Law Ia 1885 per
cent. We leave it by the pending bill at
S9.O7. A difference of 80 cents In 9 hun
dred dollars will hardly drive the cotton
manufacturing industry OF this continent.
The whole labor cost ia ectt,a manufac'
lures averages 2I.6 per cent, and there Il
but httls difference between this country
and England in the labor cost Of cottor
goods. Bot If England psid notbiag fol
her labor, We have left duty enough t.
nearly doubls the libor cost here. Ths
present revenues from cotton goods d