The Russellville Democrat., 1890-06-12
M'KiNLEYs REBATES.


 1 to Foreigners Cheaper Than in tho Hems f Market An Unjust Discrimination | Against the American People in tlae Hum ! bug "AmerIcan Blf."
 The Mckinley bfl is a bill of false pretenses. Besides it's attempt to gull 1 the farmer there are various other de- captions aimed at in it. One of the 1 most notable is in the matter of rebates. When any material Is brought into this country and is then sold outside of the country again, either in its first form or after being worked up into some manufactured product the Gov ernment refunds 90 per cent. of the duty which had been paid on this mate rial when 1t was brought into the coun- try. This part of the duty refunded hy 1 the Government is called rebate, or drawback
 The Government now gives back, as stated, 90 per cent. of the duty. Mir. Mckinley proposes that the Govern ment shall hereafter pay back 99 per cent, keeping only one per cent. to pay expenses for collection.
 1 This measure was claimed by McKin- ley, in his opening speech on the Tariff bill, to place our manufacturers in pre- cisely the same position, with regard to raw material. Mckinley has heard the foreign trade, as if they had free voice of the manufacturers of the East demanding free raw material. He has seen the petition of the New England manufacturers. with the names of hun dreds of the most prominent firms att tached to it, asking for free coal and coke and free pig iron.
 Something had to be done to make it app pear that this demand had been granted. Accordingly the rebate on raw material was raised from 90 per cent. to 99 per cent This. Mir. Mckinley said, would 1 give the manufacturers, so far as inn 1 ported materials were concerned, all the advantages of free trade in the foreign market In this way the Lord High Tariff Maker thinks he has silenced the l demand for free raw material.
 But it is just here that the false pre- tense comes in. This rebate, as is we'll known in manufacturing and trade circles, is practically dead letter. It l is worth so little to manufacturers they seldom apply for it. The difficulties and delays in the way of settling the rebate are so great that it is almost en- tirely ignored.
 Speaking of Mir. McKinley's claim that the 90 per cent. rebate gives the manufacturers all tho advantages of l free trade. the New York Commercial Bulletin has this to say: ''Manufact- urers who have had experience of the visionary character of rebates will not be deceived by thls. They know that rebates, although ostensibly put forward as encouragements to the export trade, have no effect in that direction, and simply serve to mislead 1 public opinion, if they are not so intended The conditions under are so onerous as to be practically pro hibitive. In the first place, exports ot such manufactures as textiles, to qualify for it. must be wholly composed of inn ported materials, and in the second, such articles as blows, moving machines and shovels must have imported mate rial incorporated in their manufacture to an extent exceeding one half of the total of the materials used. It is still l further necessary, in order to make claim legitimate, that the imported materials shall be identiiable, that is, in every step of the manufacturing pro cess they shall practically be under the surveillance of Government officials. The present tariff allows rebate of 90 per cent, under the above conditions, but the trouble and expense attending any attempt at it's collection have been so great that exporters have found it to their advantage to ignore it altogether. It is not at all likely, therefore, that the proposed change from rebate of 90 per cent to one of 90 per cent. will prove satisfactory solution of the difficulty, and the clause will therefore continue useless"
 Mir. A. E. Farquhar, of York, Pa, one of our largest manufacturers and ex- porters of agricultural machinery, has written letter to the New York Tribune in which he calls attention to the embarrassments which combine to make the drawback or rebate provision practically dead letter. .sThe least of these" he says, 'is the fact that the duty is not refunded but only a portion of it-9o per cent. Then the regulations which are required by the Treasury Department to guard against frauds, the necessity of ofproying that the imported goods in each article exceed half it's value, the limit of time in which drawbacks can be claimed, the danger of having orders scountermanded by con- tinual delays, practically involve so much annoyance and precious time as to eat up all the profits there were in the drawbacks, even when the material was as much as 30 per cent cheaper in England than here"
 And thus it is seen that the tariff makers talk about his rebate placing all the advantages of free trade in the hands of the manufacturers, is simply piece of pretense. It is like his duty on eggs, which Mir. Butterworth, his Republican colleague from Ohio, says means lone omelet year"
 But why should Mr. Mckinley propose to give foreign buyers great advantage over the home consumer at the doors of the home market factories? He held up his bill as ian American bill not European bill" Why then should Americans be discriminated against in this precious American bill? Our tariff maker gives Europeans, who buy the products of our factories, the advantage of free raw materials; but he refuses this same advantage to the American buyer. And yet he calls 1t an "Ameri- can bill" What has the American citi- zen done, that he must be made to pay duties onrawm materials which are offered to the European without duty? Does Mckinley think that the people will look upon this as just and fair to them?
 This looks as if Mir. Mckinley regard ed the home market theory as hum- bug, and the home market itself as en- titled to no special consideration. It is known that many of our manufacturers secretly entertain the same feelings toward the home market They will contribute liberally for election ex- penses to hold the home market for themselves, and will make expensive