The advocate., 1890-11-12

Plttsburg, LJoseph y. Weeks, edltor,) for March
Z, isOO, which tells be that the cost OF coke NJ
Pittsburg for making one ton Of Dig'iron WAS
1924, while the cost Of the same no a Cumber.
land furnace In England WAS 1885, 3D., which Is
equal 10 sO.2s, Here Isl difference OF sOU IN
favor OF the American manufacturer WplnB out
the whole wages differences and leaving bal
ance Of ~ 20 on the other side Oi course thls
may be offset by other costs Of production, The
net cost In this country put by Commissioner
Wright at s2t0G per ton, and In England at slSGl
difference 40 %, for which a cOmpensatng duty
OF si3.ti Is allowed In the Mckinley bin In add.
tlOn 10 irelghtcharges, insurance, etc.
Mr.. White boldly aversin his "gen-
eral summing up Of Andrew Carne-
gle" in tho New York Erenind Post
the conclusion Of his article that
protection never yet established an
industry in this country" He cites
instances where one set Of American
manufacturers became enabled to
cut the throats OF another set in the
same line Of business and thus he
finishes his review Of the Carnegie
article:
A glance at Mr.. CaneAes paper AS a whole
shows that he has rested his case on premises
which are false, yz., that thls country as u
manufacturing country Is new, that when the
civil war broke out we had not the means Of
providing ourselves with arms or with iron or
STEEL and that the republic would have been lost
but for our purchases Of these articles abrold;
that wages In manufacturing empoyments here
are more than double what they are In England,
etc., etc. II all these premises we're true, !, for
one, should still maintain that the protective
policy ia wrong delusiye, and fraudulent, and to
show that 10 Is unnecessary / should point to the
upsprngng and growth Of manufactures In our
own west and south without yestlge OF protec.
tiOn against the older manufactures Of the east,
But have shown you that his premises are not
true, and that they have not the least foundation
10 remains 20 add that Mr.. Carnegie Is nm inter
ested party In this discussion, and therefore not
clOn because he makes profits out VI the tariff,
We have seen that the duty on steel rails allows
Si344 per ton 10 compensate Mr., Carnegie for 4
difference In wages OF SaSi per ton. The duty on
iron and steel beams for structural purposes m
der tho Mckinley bill Is s2O,iG per ton, TO com
pensate him for a difference In wages which can
not DO more than SO per ton, II so much. sup
pose that this is one Of the industries In which
''less protection Is now necessary, provided thai
IL bo kept AT the point Of prohibition. Clearly
Mr.. Carnegie Is under suspicion, IL he were on
the wltness-stand, the Judge would be obliged Il
charge the Jury chat since nc has a pocunary In
terest in one side OF the case, they must scruti
nile his testimony closely and see how far II Is
corroboratod by facts II the facts cOntradlc
him, ne must step down and out We viii ac
cordlngly dismiss him and lot him hight his IN
ture battles with his own workIngmen He ha
had his share OF that kind Of 0ghtlng and ha
been oftener victorious than otherwise, believe
That is his proper field. Asa public teacher HI
Is not success.
Now let Kansas farmers whose
products Of the soil must needs go sc
many miles by rail, realize what pro
tected" Carnegie puts in grievous'bur
dens upon them in the greatly addeC
cost Of transportation through taxed
rails.
---s---sa--a------.-
/ nyamvwv,