The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1890-07-11
DUTY on GLASSWARE

The Inconsistencies OF Some OF the Rrov18-
ions OF the Mckinley Bill Shown Up By
COMMITTEES Of New York Importers
The importers of New York appeared
on the 4th of June before the Senate
committee in charge of the Mckinley
bill. This was the largest delegation
that has been to Washington this year
about the tariff schedules. There were
some 200 men in the party and the meet
ing with the Senate committee had to
be held in an extra large room in order
to accommodate so large q number.
They did not represent New York alone.
but spoke for Baltimore. Philadelphia,
Boston, Cincinnati and Chicago.
A number of the delegates made adj
dresses before the committee, and q
memorial was presented signed by AS
of New York's large importing houses
One of the heaviest indictments against
the Mckinley bill in this memorial is
that the duties levied in the bill dis
criminate against the poor and to the
advantage of the rich, the duties being
higher on the cheaper goods For ex-
ample, on the cheaper grades of dress
goods the duty is 100 per cent and on
the lowest priced hosiery the Mckinley
duty is double the present rate. This
is a matter which concerns the farmers
and the worlcingmen of the country.
MIR. Isidor Strauss made a most inter
esting argument. using various articles
as object lessons to illustrate his points
He stated in the first place, what people
very often forget, that SO long as the
tariff did not forbid importations al
together it did not hurt the importers.
On the contrary reasonably high duties
were rather favorable to them than
otherwise, for they made a profit on the
duty, for they reckon their profit on the
original cost of the goods, plus the duty.
| So 1t is the unprotected and uncared for
consumers that suffer.
He showed the Committee a tumbler
which the importers can sell to the
wholesale merchants for forty five cents
dozen, including the duty. The price
of these tumblers would be twenty cents
dozen higher if the Mckinley bill be-
came law. And yet a tumbler quite
as good as the imported one was made
and sold in this country for twenty-five
cents a dozen. So that the existing
duty was practically prohibitory and the
effect that an increase could have, would
be to raise the price of the domestic
article.
Another grade of tumblers-such as
are used by the poor people-would cost
the wholesaler SO cents dozen, instead
of 20 cents, if the rate of duty proposed
by Mr.. Mckinley were adopted.
The bill fixes the duty on common
lamp chimneys at 80 cents dozen. Yet
the domestic chimney of the same quail
ity is sold at II cents a dozen. Why
was this? The whole idea of protection
is to compensate manufacturers for the
high wages they have to pay as com
pared with the wages paid by their for.
eign rivals. But in this case the duty
was almost twice as much as the whole.
sale price of the article.
The common porcelain lamp shades
used on the cheapest lamps would cost
S1.25 a dozen by the Wholesale instead
of 90 cents-the price under the exist
ing law. And almost none of them are
made in this country. One can not helI
asking, have the people of the United
States any rights which the boodlert
and tariff swindiers are bound to respect;
Mr.. Louis Windmuller discussed tbs
wool question. He showed that the duty
on raw wool was raised, in one case
from "a to 80 per cent, and in anothel
from 80 to so per cent. And he showed
further that the only possible effect o
increasing the duty on the coarse grades
of carpet wool-which were not RAISED
here at ali-would be to increase thei
price.
1t was just as bad with wooden goods
such as are worn by the bulk of thu
population. Indeed, Mr.. Ernest Wer
ner thought that the Mckinley bill
would absolutely prohibit their impor
tation.
If the showing made by these gentle
men does not kill this measure, it viii
be because the protectionist statesmen
are owned body and soul by the monopo
lists, who thrive by expressing thu
masses of this country.