Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-10-01

ment submitted, anu recouiuiecuS" W
Congress- a duty Of 80 per cent The Com
mittee of Ways and Means reported 10 the
House so per cent, and when it came be-
fore that body was ably and successfully
advocated by Col. Ben Wilson, of our dis
trict, to whom Mr. Gillender Ian ardent
Republican, and myself, had committed 1t.
It went to the Senate, then largely Repa0-
liean, where the rate was cut dotrn to 40 per
cent, while at the very came time iron ore
which some of our N lis were importing
from Africa because the Bsssemer rail
mills with large consumption were able to
pay greater prices than orr nail, mills for
best home ores-icds increased so per cent.
The statement in your article that THE
Mills bill proposed to reduce the tariff
again to 40 per cent" on this schedule Of
cut glass, Sc, is certainly 'orsHg Tie
Bill, Il. R. s051, commonly known as the
Mills bill, page 1s, says As per cent, and
IN ADDITION, this same Mills bill, gives
the additional projection of duty on ship
ping charges, packages, &c, &C., which
runs it up to about so per cent the highest
protection qlass erer had. The rate of 40
per cent, both Hon. w. L. Wilson and
Senator Faulkner assure me by letter Is
correct. In regard to cheareuing home
product and lessening price to consumers,
have to say that the evident meaning l
intended to convey, was, that when the
industry WAS we'll estsbliuhed, new facto-
ries would spring up, competition would
result, improvement in methods and ma
chinery be made "a larger product at less
cost obtained, and consequently lower
prices to the consumer. Thus, home
competition would bring less price
to the consumer. This state
ment was made FIVE years ago,
before the establishment Of Trusts, now go
much the vogue, and which tend to defeat
the otherwise benefcent effect OF home
competition, and tend also to increase the
price to the consumer. l cannot agree
with you that single per cent added to
the duty WAS the sole cause Of the evident
increase aud prosperous condition OF the
cut-pl factories--it undoubtedly helped.
Many causes co-operated-the beautiful
designs suited to American taste, an H.
crease of culture, natural gas chespen'ng
the product and adding to its br'lliancy,
&c. In your Issue Saturday you state
'the Mills bill" proposed a reduction OF
25 per cent 90 bottles. If you mean the
bill 9051 which passed the House OF Keep
reseptatives ard commonly known as the
Mills bill, you are mistaken ss to its rate
II is the same ~ the Kelly bill of 1883 -
one cent per pound. Yo1 quote with the
emphasis of italics my remark to the Tar
if Commission that
THE reason for asking for all Increased duty
is the great difference paid in wages here and
abroad"
Very good, aud President Cleveland 10 his
letter of acceptance sesms to u's the same
method of gusging the character OF the
protection to be afforded our indus
tries, when he says, ave propose in any
adjustment of our revenue laws to concede
such encouragement and advantage to the
employer of domestic labor as ciH easily
compensate for any difference that may erist
betlceea the standard of lcages Which should
be paid to our laJOring men and the rate al
Iorred in other countries" As 10 st el, the
majority of the Committee of Ways and
Means reported in favor of an advance on
As per cent. I'D valorem to eleven dollars
per ton specific. There was no amend
ment made until after Major Mckinley,
30 prominently mentioned for the Repub'
lican nomination for President, vehe-
msntly assailed that pMt OF the Commit
tees report and which brought ouch
pressure on the Committee that the I'D
vance could not be maintained. 1t re-
mains to be seen whether the Senate bill
will propose any better figure than the
Mills bill originally proposed of eleven
dollars.
On p,tteries do not wish to say more
at present than that the Mills bill gives a
rate of 50 per cant. on China &c, &C.,
decorated. To this ia added duties On
packages and CHARGE which, accord
ing to the Tariff Commission re-
port made to President Arthur, is
ten per cent, 30 that the duty is
practically the same as it has been. The
statement of Mr.. King is put very adroitly
but is intended to convey to the public
and to the wage earners-glasswcrkers es-
pecislly-that such a reduction, is propos-
ed in the tariff on druggists, graduates,
&C., as will compel a reduction in wages
of twenty per cent. This statement l
challenge. The only change in the Mills
bill III. r. 9051) which touches the arti-
clss described is from As to 40 aud this
simply reduces the schedule to the rate
rhich prevailed up to 1888, when it was adj
vanced principally to cover porcelain ware.
All that We asked OF the Commission on
pressed glassware was IS per cent. We
would not have been surprised had they
reduced it to 25 Instead of this and to
save work at the Custom house aud pre-
vent 40 many items in the schedules, it
was classified under the 40 per cent.
clause. The glass manufacturers did not
advance their workmen 5 per cent.
on getting this advance in class
iication, neither would they have
asked for reduction of wages had the
rate been reduced to IS cents. A change
of rate does not always mean disadvantage
to the manufacturer, nor change of wages
to the workmen, and the change on drug
ware will mean no less. The cost of glass
is not equal in every locality, nor even at
any two factories in the same locality. Some
thing depends on organization and eco
nomical management, and skilland business
capacity. What the advantages or disad-