West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1891-07-30
THE FIRST AND THE LAST.
Mckinley's Robber Tax Compared
With George Washlngton's Tariff.
ST. Louis Republic.

In his carefully prepared speech
at the Tariff League banquet in New
York Major Mckinley said
have always been proud Of that
first great act. Why, it was the sec
ond law passed by the American
Congress and sigucd by Washington
on that day memorable in American
history. The men who made it had
the courage, which we never have
had since, of putting in the body Of
the bill exactly what they meant.
| Applause. They declared that
they were making that tariff bill for
two purposes. First to raise reve-
nue. to conduct the infant govern
ment, and secondly, to encourage
manufactures. Applanse.
No Congress since has been brave
eaough to do that [applauscl and
the farmers knew Just what they
wanted. They had enough farmers:
they wanted consumers, Applause |
They were all farmers. They
couldn't sell wheat to each other.
for each raised more than he wanted
FOR his own use, aud they had no
foreign markets i'm their day, for
they were inaccessible and expensive
and they deliberately made that tar
if to build up manufactures that
they might have consumers rather
than have more competitors. Zap
plause.
If Major Mckinley will put "that
first great act" side by side with his
own great act" his pride in one of
them must quickly vanish. No two
laws could show sharper contrast
in spirit and in detail. II is true "the
farmers had no foreign markets in
those days, for they were inaccessi-
BILE and expensiye;" and he might
have added that Hamilton gave as
one of his reasons fortrying to build
up home manufactures that the tar
lff laws of foreign nations abridged
the vent" of our increasing agrioul
tural surplus and shut 1t out of their
markets.
Compare what the farmers" who
then had no foreign markets did,
when, as he says, they deliberately
made that tariff to build up manu-
factures. with what he does now
that they have foreign market, TO
support manufactures already built
UP, but still demanding to be bill
eted on the farmer. The average
duty under their bill was 81 per
cent. Under the Mckinley Bill it is
60 per cent. On the manufactured
articles generally they put up per
cent; he puts from so TO over 100
per cent. On calicoes they put up
8 per cent. ; be puts 80 per cent. On
manufactures Of cotton they put 3
per cent; he puts over 40 per cent.
They made wool free. manufactures
os wool 5 per cent. he puts an avl
erago tax of over 80 per cent. on
wool and manufactures of wool. On
carpets they put 3 per cent. his
rates run to IS per cent. On all
ready made clothing they put u per
cent; his rates, in some cases, run
oyer 100 per cent. On oarthen and
stone ware they put per cent; he
puts sometimes as high as GO per
cent. On manufactures OF iron or
steel they put per cent; be puts
from so to 100 per cent. They made
pig tin free, tin plate 8 per cent;
ne puts cents a pound on pig tin
and 80 per cent. on tin plate. They
put 10 per cent. on window glass;
his rates ran from 70 to 100 per cent.
The farmer" wore too sincere to
put a deceptive tax on Farm pro.
ducts, and left them under the gen
eral clause at per cent; bis bill
angles Tor tbe farmer vote with q
sharp hook baited with q worthless
tax Of IS per cent. on agricultural
products. When one thus compares
these rates in the bill deliberately
made" by those early "farmcrs" to
start or to encourage infant manu-
facturos with the rateso OF The McKin.
ley Bill for well established, hum
dred year old manufactures, he isat
a loss to understand how the patron
OF the act Of 1890 can be proud of
The act of 1889, or Uics rcrsa. If the
latter was in truth a great act,
then the former is in truth "a gent
Gan iDdoscribablc) outrage" We
cannot advance from a tariff Of g.
per cent, which Major Mckinley
admits was q protective measure, to
tariff Of GO per cent, which he
has given us, without passing from