Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1890-09-12
SCHEDULE A.-CHEMICALS, OILS AND
PAINTS.


PAINTS.
ACIDS
/. Acetic OF pyroligneous acid, not exceed
ing the specific gravity OF one and forty
seven one-thousandths, one and one-half
cents per pound; exceeding the specific
gravity of one and forty-seven one
thousandths, four cents per pound.
3 Boracic acid, five cents per pound
3. Chronic acid six cents per pound.
A. Citric acid, ten cents per pound.
D. Muriatc acid, one-fourth OF one cent per
pound.
G. sglp}suric acid or oil Of cNriol, oneJourM
Of one cent per pound.
Z. fannie acid OF tannin, one dollar per
pound, &C., &c.
The fact that the bill taxed sulphurie
acid was commented upon afterwards by
Democratic speakers Oh the stump, notably
by H. st. c. Tucker Of the 10th district and
the farmers were informed Of the effect of the
tax. Our esteemed Republican cotempo-
rary, the Harrisonburg Spirit Of the Valley
who, it would appear, had not read the bill,
met these Democratic directors with this
statement under the caption OF Ignorance
OF Worse"
The misrepresentation which the low tar
if speakers and newspapers continue to make
concerning the proposed tariff law are simply
inexcusable, whether they be the result of ig-
norance (of which, by the way, the average
free trader has an abundant supply OF of q
deliberate intention to deceive.
eve might mention dozen or more instan-
ces in which they have persistently misrepre-
scented plain facts in regard to this bill, but
we will only mention two.
''1st They have loudly and continuously
asserted that the Mckinley bill proposes to
add to the duty on Sulphuric acid to such an
extent as to cause an increase in the price Of
those fertilizers into which that acid enters,
2oten as q matter OF ffact THE MCKINLEY BILL
ACTUALLY places such acids upon tie free last.
That is, instead of increasing the duty upon
that article, the bill actually proposes to ad-
nit it into this country absolutely free of
duty"
OF course the Mckinley bill passed by
the Republican House did not place
sulphuric acid on the free list, but on the
contrary took it from the free list and put
it Oil the taxable list, and we called the at
tention Of our contemporary to that fact
Which was of record. In its issue of last
week on this point it says:
1.-The Spirit had stated two things. viz: /.
tl-7 CRY the Free traders that the Nc
Kinley bill would increase the cost of fertii-
zers by placing a duty upon sulphuric acid
used in the manufacture of fertilizers was
either ignorance OF worse; for, as we stated
sulphuric acid to be used i'll manufacturing
fertilizers was placed on the free list.
x x
''Now, we assert emphatica1ly that sulphl-
ric acid used for all agricultural purposes is
to be free of duty-to be placed upon the free
list. For proof of this we refer to page 131 OF
the Senate bill, paragraph 7O5, which con-
tains these words
Suphuric acid, for use in manufacturing
super phosphate of lime artificial manures OF
any Kind, or for any agricultural purposes, free
Now, Mr. FINDICAToR, thong
you have made fearful mistake as to the
facts about sulphurc acid we still think you
are honest, and that you would not wilfully
mislead your readers, and we shall confident
ly expect you to come out in manly straight
forward manner and tell them you We're a.
together t0r0ng as to sulphuric acid"
Our contemporary has fallen into a pit
from which, notwithstanding its touching
appeal, We cannot eXtricate it. The ''Sen-
ate blll'' to which he refers is not the
House Mckinley bill which he declared
placed sulphuric acid Oh tue free list. 1t
is the House Mckinley bill as amended by
the Senate Finance Committee, which com
mittee struck out of it the tac on SUI
phU'dc ocjd. The loud murmurs of the
people and the harangues of the Democrat
lc orators over that clause in the Mckinley
bill, had borne fruit by the time the Senate
got hold OF it, and the clause tax
ing sulphurlc acid was stricken out and the
acid was restored to the free list. What
the Democratic press and orators had
''persistently asserted before the people
had its effect, and had had expunged from
the Mckinley bill what our cotemporary
declared was not in it.
In the same article in which it's error
about the Mckinley bill appeared our CO.
tie npOrary said:
"A few days ago Senator Jones of Arkansas.
actually arose in his seat in the Senate and
asserted that the cost Of labor in making ton
OF steel rails was only S1.54. and consequent
ly the laborers could not get much out of the
tariff Oh steel rails
Senator Platt of Connecticut, INN ediately
refuted this argument by showing him what
Senator Payne, Democrat, had told the Sen
ate was the actual amount of the labor cost of
ton OF steel rails, which he showed was
S2l. So i'll ton costing S29.50 This allows
S7.61 for ore, coke, COAL oil, gas, clay, &c.
and any one can at once see that these items.
for instance coal, represent in part labor.
Thus labor gets $21 SO instead of 81. Oh.
Now What are we to think of such misrep-
resentations?''
In reply to the above lin which the ital-
les are ours) we published the official state
ment of [. S. Commissioner of Labor
Wright, showing that the direct s'zaboq
cost" III making a ton Of steel rails was
about $l.5l, and further that the whole ssla-
. Dor COST involved in making ton of steel
rails in the United States-that is the labor
cost i'll producing the ore, coke, coal. lime
stone, pig iron and SO on through every step
of the process, was but $11.5o OF only p
cents more than i'll Europe. We rested our
contention on the Labor Commissioners
figures. Our contemporary replies to this:
The VINDICAToR is mistaken as to both of
these propositions. If the able editor will
take the trouble to turn to the Congressional
Record pages 1O071-72-73 he will find that the
tables furnished by Commissioner Wright
upon the request of Senators Edmunds and
Carlisle show that the cost of steel rails in
England is six dollars and five cents less than