The Sunday morning news. [volume] (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1886-1891, 1890-10-26
TARIFF GEMS.
Light Thrown on the Inside Of
Foreign Clay for Domestic Use.

/
To the Editor Of the Sunday Morning Netes;--
Here is a gem showing how the tariff
| was revised In the interests of labor by
the Mckinley bill. On December 81
| 1889 there appeared before the Committed
of Ways and Means one Jesse b. ktmes
of Philadelphia, manufactures Of china
clay. Said Mr. Kiines to the Commit
tee:-"The clay manufacturers are de-
/ sirous of increasing the rate OF duty on
| foreign clays to what 1t was in 1883 II
was IS a ton at that time for wrought
| china-clays, and So ton for unwrOught
clays 1t is $3.50 and 50 a ton at the
present time. The lowest wages we are
paying IS 81. Is a day.
The Chairman What IS paid per day
in Europe?'
Mr.. Kimes:-sI am assured they pay in
Cornwall, England, two shillings Il day,
which is about fifty cents. Freights from
Cornwall to New York In many instances
do not amount to four shillings and six
pence, which is less than $1.2o a ton"
Mr.. Breckinridge:--s'F Forty men work
ing say ten hours would get out twenty
tons of clays'
Mr.. Kimes:--'' Yes, sir.
The Have you reduced the
price of labor since the reduction (of the
tariff on clay in 1892
Mr.. Kimes:-"No, sir; labor is now per-
haps ten per cent higher than it was in
lSS3.'
The foregoing / have copied from the
official Hearings before the Committee
on Ways and Means.n 1t will be observed
that is If takes forty men one day TO get
out twenty tons of clay it will take one
man two days to get out one ton, aud the
wages of one man in this country being
ST. % a day the cost OF labor in getting out
one ton Of domestic clay must be 50 so.
In Cornwall the cost of labor in getting
out one ton at fifty cents a day would be
ST. Add to this 81 of labor COST the
freight from Cornwall to New
York, which. according to Mr..
Hines, is Sl.25, and then add to
which is $L50. These figures show that,
at the very lowest estimate, a ton of Cor
nish china clay cannot be landed on our
shores for less than 1915, or .25 more
than the cost of production. to the domes-
tic manufacturer. Observe also that al
though the tariff on unwrought clay was
reduced fifty per cent. IN 1888. the rate of
wages since then has increased ten per
cent. Now. If wages have gone up In this
way, despite the reduction in the tariff,
and If the domestic manufacturer
can produce his clay at SLIPS
ton cheaper than the foreign clay can
be imported why should Mr.. Kimes ask
for an increase OF the tariff on clay? This
question occurred to a member of the
he wanted an increase of duty. Here is
Mr.. Kimes' reply. He said:-''We want
TO be able to compensate ourselves for the
depletion of the property aud get just
remuneration for our labor" This
means that he wants to raise the price of
clay, for in no other way can he com
pensaten himself. The part OF his answer
which refers to the lust remuneration
of laborn is nonsense, for he asked that
the tariff should be restored to what 1t
was prior to 1888, while he admitted that
wages are 10 per cent. better than they
were under the sold tariff which he want
ed TO have re-established.
The result OF all which will be that
wages will stay where they are, that the
price of everything manufactured In
whole or in part OF china clay will be in
creased, and that Mr.. Kimes and his fell
lows will reap a rich harvest of profits
from the robbed and deluded American
people.
Note also that one Mr.. j. Hart Brewer
appeared before the same committee. He
is big potter at Trenton and has to buy
china clay TO manufacture his earthen--
ware. IN 1883 the tariff on plain ware
Yves increased to IS per cent, and on dec
GRATED ware to 60 per cent, and in
1885 there was a general reduc-
ton of wages. Now Mr. Brewer told
the committee that his s'only hope was to
get an increase OF duty" that is to say
further increase from the rates fixedin
1888. and he added that if he got that in
crease he hoped by CHANCES in hfs bust
ness and "a slightdecrease in wages that
he would be able to get along. May ask,
if labor gets the benefit of our tariff why
did wages go down in the pottery industry
after the tariff on pottery had been in
creased in 1888, and why, If the tariff is
still further Increased. should 1t be
necessary to still further reduce wages?
Respectfully,
J. M NJ