Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-08-15
Facts About the Growth of Our
Iron Interests.

Facts About the Growth of Our
Iron Interests.
The outcry raised concerning perfect
ly justifable reduction made by the Mills
bill in the tariff which we inherit from
the war is illogical and absurd. In 1856
John Shoenberger, at that time the
heaviest iron manufacturer of Pittsburgh,
Penn, wrote pamphlet to prove that
the iron men needed very little protec
ton. Since then the iron barons have
waxed enormously wealthy, while the
worker in iron under high tariff re-
mains as poor as he ever was.
The Mills bill does justice to our iron
and steel interests, and leaves them with
q high protective duty-one amply suffi-
cient to guarantee them stability and
prosperity. Surely our iron manu-
factures are no longer an infant industry :?
Mr.. J. @. Smith has written pamphlet
about our iron development. He has
discovered that the manufacture of iron
began in this country more than $50
years ago. There was no tariff for near
ly $50 years. English iron and iron
goods were admitted without distinction.
But Notwithstanding, the manufacture
of iron grew so rapidly that as early as
171S Americans began to export pig iron
to England. In 1882 they began to ex-
port bar iron, and continued exporting
both pig and bar iron to England down
until the Revolution. They did this
notwithstanding they had to pay, prior
to 1850, a duty to England on the
iron they exported OF IS. cd. a
ton. This duty was repealed by Par
Lament in 1850. But the proposition to
repeal the duty was met by storm of
opposition from the iron manufacturers of
England. They declared they would be
ruined if they had to compete with
American makers of iron. They repre-
sented that English and Welsh furnaces
would have to be closed, and "a great
number of our families reduced to beg
gary" But our people had made such
progress in the manufacture of superior
edge tools, augurs, scythes, shovels,
nails, muskets, etc., that in 1850, Parlia-
ment passed law absolutely prohibiting
the erection in the Colonies of any slit
ting or rolling mills, plating forges or
steel furnaces. They were still willing
to let us make pig iron, but feared our
competition in the higher branches of
manufacture. The export of American
iron to England continued to grow until
in III it amounted to 5,3O3 tons. Is
not this strange story?l Under free
trade-nay, with considerable duty
against them-the iron makers of the
scattered, thin, weak American Colonies
were able to compete more than $50
years ago with English manufacturers
and pay tariff duty in their own mar
kets.
Down till 1889 there was no tariff in
this country on iron. "Our manufacture
was exposed to the full force of British
competition, but it made every great
and rapid progress. Before the adop-
ton of the Constitution, and before any
tariff law was passed, steel began to be
manufactured. One furnace in Penn.
sylvania was producing 23O tons a year.
The first tariff law imposed duty on
bar, bolt and pig iron of ~ per cent. 1t
was afterwards increased to Is per cent.
Under this low tariff, the manufacture of
iron greatly and rapidly increased.
"Twenty-one new furnaces were built in
Pennsylvania alone between 1870 and
1900. Between 1894 and 1902 the iron
manufacture Of New Jersey more than
doubled"
In 1910, the Secretary of the Treasury
Albert Gallatin-declared that our
iron manufacture was "firmly estab.
lished." We were making SO, 300 tons Of
iron, and importing 5000 tons. We were
making 9l7 tons of steel and importing
$50 tons only.
In the eight years following the passage
OF the low tariff of 1888 our iron produc.
ton increased 1872 per cent. In 1882
we consumed 274,OO0 tons, of which we
imported only 27 per cent. In 1s4O we
consumed Ala, ,l63 tons, of which we i'm.
ported only 16 per cent. According tc
the census reports, in the ten years be.
tween 1850 and 1860 our iron production
increased from $4,000 tons to 97s, ,OOC
tons, or 76 per cent.
This brief sketch of the growth of iron
manufacture surely proves that the whole
idea that it needs coddling and aiding al
the expense of all other interests and all
other kinds of labor is delusion and an
imposition. 1t has no doubt grown un.
der protection, but it has grown also with
great rapidity under low tariff and unde,
no tariff at all.
The Mills bill in no sense menaces the
worker in iron. What is there to dread
in reduction in steel rails, for instance
from $l7 to $40 ton? 1t is not create,
than the Republicans themselves were
willing to consent to in 1888, and the
same is true of the whole metal list. ex.
cept tin, of which there is only one mine
in the United States, owned by a hal
dozen persons, being worked, and few
others to which the principle of the
greatest good to the greatest number ba,
been applied.
This whole howl is hollow and baseless