The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1890-10-29
The INCREASE
On the Necessities Of Life
One-Third Higher,
While the Duties on Lux
uries for the Rich
REMAINS ABOUT the SAME.
Difference it makes to the
WOrkingman.
REMAINS ABOUT THE SAME.


Daniel McKeever, the well-known
economist and New York merchant,
writes his views on the tariff question,
as applied to wearing apparel, which in
terests everybody, and particularly peo-
pie without great means. Mr.. Mckee
yer says:
The actual additional cost to the i'm
porters on the various articles used
by men and women for clothing pur-
poses is from 25 to so per cent. more
than under the old tariff, but the actual
advance asked to-day by the importers
is only from 1215 to 25 per cent. But
this is only for to-day, because no man
is willing, after his stock at low price
is closed out and if he is to pay the ad-
ditional cost on the new stock, to sell at
such small advance.
The enhanced cost of all the cheaper
grades of textile fabrics used by either
men or women will fall on those who
are less prepared to pay it, namely, the
poor consumers. Every article that
may be classed among the necessaries of
life is increased over 3316 per cent on
an average, while the luxuries remain
wages are not and will not be increased
one iota, whereas there is not laboring
man in the country whose expenses will
not be increased from $50 to $50 a year.
This may look very small to the mill
ionaires, but $50 a year to the working
man means thirty days wages given for
nothing, as the workingman's time is
his capital, and what he loses in time
means his loss of capital Every
working-girl who earns S4 or S5
or IS a week will feel the in
creased tax, without dollar of bene-
fit to her. The strongest advocate of
the bill would not dare to claim that
shop-girl's wages would be advanced
from S5 to Sc a week because it will cost
her at least 81 a week extra to clothe
herself, under the Mckinley bill as we'll
as she could have done under the old
bill.
The result of the entire matter will
be that the consumer, and by the con-
sumner I mean the working man, must of
necessity do with fewer goods and less
changes of clothing than heretofore. If
under the present rate of wages the
workingman has been simply able to
h0Op A4luSC41 etIIA CAObhO LIS 4uL111J, AO
certainly can not afford to give thirty
days of his labor for nothing to simply
keep himself as he has been doing up
to this time. 1t may be little while
before the working classes realize the
effect of the Mckinley bill on them,
but when they do realize that and see in
actual facts that which has hitherto cost
them So will now cost Sc they will rise
en- masse and demand the repeal of such
an inquitous law, that not only fails to
protect our industries but imposes
wholly unnecessary burden on the poorer
classes.
To-day they have practically prohib-
tied 60 per cent. of the cheap classes of
goods. The consumer of that 60 per
cent. must pay the enhanced value to
either the manufacturers or the import
ers. The importer, if he has to pay the
enhanced value, must change his prices
accordingly. The manufacturers have
got to pay so much additional cost on
his raw material that he is no better OF
than the importer, so that the consumer
is the only sufferer.
The cotton clothes worn by the farm
laborer, which heretofore paid duty of
35 per cent, pays to-day lis per cent,
whereas the clothes worn by a million
aire are raised from so per cent. to 60
per cent.