Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-15

43 cents in 1879 to 30 cents in 1881: hay, from
% per ton in 1879 to ell per ton in 1881; mid
ding cotton, from 10 cents in 1879 to II cents
in 1881.
This increase in the value Of farm products
was caused by the increased demand for expor-
tation, which was the product of increased i'm
portation. Il distributed many millions among
our farmers that without the increased importa-
ton would never have been within their reach,
and this increase Of pecuniary ability enabled
them to buy more Of the products Of manufac-
ture, and that created demand for manufac-
turing labor to make the things that their
wants demanded, and in turn the demand for
their employment gave them
STEADY WORK AND INCREASING WAGES"
The report goes on at great length to criti-
else the bill in detail and argues, with statis-
tics, &C., to show that period of restricted
importations have always conceded with a
period Of depression. The report. for the
rest. is a long argument to show the defects
and evils OF the Senate bill and attacking hiph
protection as principle. long argument is
made to show the superiority of the ad
valorem over the specific form Of duty.
As TO THE SUGAR BOUNTY CLAUSE
the report says: The Senate bill makes new
departure in another one of its features by
providing for bounty Of l cent per pound for
every pound Of sugar manufactured in the
United states until the year 1890. There are in
sugar annually produced in the United States,
which would take from the Treasury annually
S3,O0O, OOO, for the payment Of which the bill
provides permanent appropriation. In the
report OF the finance committee to the Senate
they characterize the House bill as a sectional
measure, intended Ito discriminate in favor of
the planters Of the cotton-growing states"
The only way in which the sugar planters
could be injured by the tariff would be by re-
ducing the taxation and consequently lowering
the price OF their sugar. This the House bill
did to the extent of about Is per cent But
the Senate bill is much more friendly to the
sugar planters of the cotton-growing states "
While 1t reduces the price of foreign sugar it
gives to the southern planter who manufac-
lures his own cane full reimbursement for the re-
duction in price in the form of the bounty which
1t provides. But to the producer of beets and
sorghum 1t gives no bounty. These farm pro-
ducts are sold to manufacturers just as cotton,
wool and other raw materials are, and the
bounty Is paid to the manufacturer of the
sugar, who is the purchaser of the beets and
sorghum produced by the farmer. The bounty
system is wrong in any aspect in which it may
be considered, but there is not even plausible
pretext for it when applied to sugar.
THE WOOL SCHEDULE.
On the subject of the wooden schedule the re-
port says: 1.-THE very large increase of rates in
the wooden schedule and the very great dis
elimination, as shown by the heavy rates on
cheap goods and the light rates on high-priced
goods, emphasizes the policy Of the friends of
the substitute. They intend to reduce the rev.
enues OF the government by Destroy
ing its foreign commerce, the source
from which it obtains its revenues The
rates of duty prescribed in the Senate bill
are not intended to raise revenue for the gov
eminent, but to increase the revenues of the
wooden manufacturers by forced contrib utions
from the labor of the entire people. Every
article in the schedule, except rags and shoddy,
is burdened with an increased duty Raw wool
and wool in every form of its manufacture is
made higher in price and harder to secure.
Wooden rags that have been manufactured
and worn out over and over again may be ad-
mitted at the same duty but not good new
wool. Why should this leniency be extended
to old rags and refused to new wool? There Is
but one answer. The manufacture of shoddy
has grown to enormous proportions in this
country, if the statements of the manufactur-
ers are to be credited
The matter will be called up in the House on
Tuesday next.
THE FREE-LIsT IN THE M'MrLLIN BILL
is almost identical with that of the Mills bill.
1t does not include molasses, laces for hats,
and sponges, which were perhaps the principal
articles placed on the free list by the Senate
finance committee. One or two articles which
were on the free list in the Senate bill and
were not included in the free list of the Mills
bill, are added to the free list Of the latter but
1t is said by member of the majority Of the
committee that there are only a very few artil
cles on the Senate bills free list not on the free
list of the Mills bill