The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-05-15
PRICES AND THE TARIFF.
THE ABsURDITY OF REPUBLICAN
CLAIMS EXPOSED.


Representative Mills Ridicules the Idea
That Manufacturers Would lAdvo
cate High Duties if They Reduced
Prices - The Toilers Given Only a
Beggarly Pittance of the Benefits
Gained by Their Employers.
WASHINGTON, May 1.-THE House this
morning again went into committee Of the
whole, with Mr.. Grosevenor in the chair, on
the tariff bill. Mr.. Bynum of Indiana
moved to reduce the duty on common
earthenware from % to Is per cent
ad valorem. He argued that, taking this
clause in connection with the customs
administrative bill, it would be found that
| the duty on earthenware would be increased
| from 10 to so per cent.
Mr.. Burrows of Michigan contended that
the effect of the tariff was to reduce the
price of articles to consumers.
This contention was denied by Mr.. Mills
of Texas, who ridiculeG the idea that If the
tariff reduced prices manufacturers would
come to congress asking that the tariff be
advanced for their benefit.
THE REPORT UNTRUE.
| Mr. Walker of Massachusetts said that in
making statement that was not true, a
man might be perfectly truthful so far as
he himself were concerned. and might not.
There was not one word of
truth in what the gentleman
| from Texas said about manufacturers
coming before the committee asking that
the duty might be put up for their protec-
ton. He did not mean by that that the
gentleman was saying what he knew was
not true. He supposed that the gentleman
believed it. No manufacturer had come
before the ways and means committee and
asked that duties be put up on his own
| account. Manufacturers came and said
that paying the wages they did the tariff
should be this, that or the other. The work
ingman got every dollar of increase of price
on account of the tariff. AS manufacturer
he hurled back the insult which dominated
manufacturers as robber barons Applause
on the republican side.
Mr.. Cultivate of Ohio ridiculed Mr..
Walkers position and quoted from the tes-
timony of a manufacturer before the COM
mittee to the effect that he wanted a higher
tariff in order to compensate himself.
MILLS GOT HIS REVENGE.
Mr.. Mills regretted that the gentleman
| from Massachusetts had become so indig-
nant. He (Mr. Mills had been charged the
other day with an exhibition of plantation
manners; the gentleman was now giving an
| eXulDlUlOn OF manufacturing LnauneTs. Inc
members of the House were told that the
gentleman, as manufacturer, did not de-
sire to promote the interest of his class. He
rose above party and interest. He became
a philanthropist and represented not him
self, but the interest of labor. His heart
was swollen with devotion to the working
man. He said that the tariff was in
tended to enable manufacturers to pay
better wages to the laborer. The manufact-
urer paid 81 % TO the laborer for produc-
ing pig iron. The government gave the
manufacturer Sc ~ in order to enable him
to pay that 81 25. The manufacturer
paid the laborer SO for producing ton of
steel rails. The government gave him SIT
to enable him to pay it. Why did not the
men, instead of turning them out Of work
and going on tally-ho rides through the
mountains of Scotland2
Mr.. Bynum's motion was defeated by a
vote of GO to Sc.
THE DUTY ON POTTERY.
DR.. Dunnell of Minnesota offered to re-
duce the duty on china, porcelain, ETC.,
from IS to IS per cent. ad valorem. He
thought that the time had come in the
history of pottery manufacture when re-
duction of the duty might be made.
Mr.. Dunnell's motion was lost by vote
of &c to 81.
Mr.. McMillin moved to reduce the duty
on domestic chinaware from 90 to As per
cent, stating that the go per cent. duty
proposed, taken in connection with the
package clause of the administrative GUS
toms bill, amounted to a considerable in
crease from the existing rates.
Mr.. Mckinley denied that the increase
that would result from the package clause
would be material. There might be an in
crease of about 5 per cent, but
that increase was necessary to continue the
china industry in this country. He held up
handsome piece of decorated ware, and
said that we could not make such in this
country before the tariff of 1888. The poor
people did not use that kind of ware, but he
promised that under protection it would
soon be placed within their reach.
A GOOD ILLUSTRATION.
Mr. Bynum of Indiana said that nothing
better illustrating the difference between
the parties on this question than the fine
ware exhibited by the gentleman, compared
with the old blue ribbon plate saucer
and cup he (Mr. Bynum) had used the last
congress to illustrate his argument. That
ware, the poor mans ware, paid Copper cent,
although it was worth but one-tenth Of the
cost OF fine ware.
Mr.. McKinley-It is getting lower all the
time.
Mr.. Bynum-Yes, the poor man has just
discarded tin plates and begun to use COM
mon ware.
MIR. McMillin's motion was defeated.
Various other amendments looking to a
reduction of the duty on earthen and glass
ware were made on the democratic side, but
they met with no success.
Mr.. Gambler of Massachusetts offered an
amendment fixing the rate of duty on
lamp chimneys at As per cent. ad valorem.
The motion was lost by vote of 55 to N.
Having considered 16 of the 156 pages
of the bill the committee rose, and the
House at 6 o'clock adjourned until IL
o'clock tomorrow.