Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-01

workmsn leaving Pittsbuxyh 10 work In
M. Macbeth said tRst his leading idea 10
going 70 Germany was tho chespness Of
material and plant
Mr.. Bavne: Was labor an elsmsntf
My. Macbeth: OF coass labor was IN
In reply 70 : question BY Mr.. Carlisle
man, woman, or child In this country
paid labor moro than he could help.
[Laughter.1 II be had free trade La his raw
material no would be perfectly willing to
have cree trade In his product. Speaking OF
| tho lead trust, Mr.. Macbeth ssid that he
was not opposed 70 trusts. Those were
business concerns. The United States
Government was q partner In the Lead
trust.
Mr.. Bayne inquired whether tho Gov
ernment was n partner in the sugar trust,
and received an affirmative answer, as he
did also TO his next question rs TO whether
the trust put up the price of product.
| Mr.. Flower: Do trusts increase the price
of an article mere than corporationf
Mr.. Macbeth: That depends. Laugh
TIE Chairman inquired whether tho con.
sumner OF lamp-chimneys would be bene-
flied by allowing Mr.. Macbeth's rsw ma
teriaI as well o. the finished product to be
admitted free. A dozen chimneys wee
| now sold at thirty cents. How much
| would they sell at Il the duty were taken
of! ~ ,,u. .,,,a ;.
| three or four cents dozen. =,
| Mr.. Gear: That Is to retailer. WouIi
| the woman who goes to store TO buy q
chimney get it for less?
Mr.. Macbeth: Ny individual opinion Is
| that dotlbt IL fIaughter.l
| Mr.. James Gillander, OF Philadelphia;
| said that the larnp-chimneys largely used
\ In this country were manufactured mere
| and were sold for less than the imported
articles. The imported chimneys were used
principally on special lamps ana were
| bought by the people of means. He did
not agree with Mr. Macbeth that the work
| ingmen of Germany were less efficient than
| those in the United States in the industry
| which be represented lie did not want free
| raw material in the glass industry. Every
article which needed protection should be
protected. but the glass manufacturer
should not be compelled to pay q higher
| duty on his raw material than was imposed
! on the finished article. He advocated an
| increase of duty on various grades of glass:
| III his raw material as well as the finished
article was admitted free he could not pay
| his workingmen the present wages ana
| compete with foreign goods.
Mr.. William K. Smith, manufacturer OF
| Green and plate bottles at Alton, ILL.,, said
| that from 30 to IS per cent. OF the hnished
product was represented by labor. In re-
gard TO q question OF the comparative en-
| cheney of the German and American work
inemon, MIR. Smith said that the former
were more careful, and, therefore, slower.
The United States had the finest workmen
| in the world, but the American push and
the extra acgressiveness of the American
workman were shown in his work. There
| fore at times quality was sacrificed TO
speed. -,
| Mr.. William j. Smith, or fittsDurgn,
president of the Flint-Class Blowers Union.
controverted the statement made, by MIR.
Macbeth that Of the fOrty-four hours
week which, The blowers worked nine hours
were waste time. He denied other state.
ments made by Mr.. Macbeth, and declared
that while he was an American and an
| American workman he was forced TO admit
that some of Che chimneys brought from
| foreign countries were not inferior to those
produced in the United States.
Mr.. Lewis Arlington, representing the
(sreen-Glass Blowers Association, de-
clared that protective tariff was neces-
sary to keep the wages of blowers up to
their present standard.
Mr.. ID. G. Dipley, of Pittsburgh, presi-
| dent of the American Flint and Lime
Glass Association, advocated protective
duty on cut glass. He presented several
specimens Of Belgian glass, and averred
that they could be laid down here at a less
price than they could be merely cut for ID
this country.
MIR. @. b. King, representing the Crystal.
| Plate Glass Company Of st. Louis. favored
tine retention of the present duty on press
| glass. He only wished that provision
should be inserted in the law to make ii
more explicit.
The committee then adjourned until
| Thursday, when the representatives OF the
| wool industry will be heard.