The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1891-12-12
Impaled On His Own Spear.

Impaled On His Own Spear.
Referring to our paragraph OF
last week, stating that the "tin plate
liar had turned up at Boise City and
been set to running in the States
man Office" that paper advises
US to get a copy of the Mckinley
law, saying if we do we will find
that tin, that is block tin, is on the
free list" The files of the KEY
STONE will show that it has twice
made that statement during the
last twelve months, but we think
the Statesman is the first to COM
NIT the blunder of admitting or de-
nying the fact. The KEYSTONE
writer is free trader, one who hon.
estly believes all pretended protec-
ton laws studied swindles of pro-
ductive labor. He therefore opposes
all protection, and most of all the
alleged protection on tin, because
the avowed object of protection as
he understands it, is to keep up
prices of commodities by, to some
extent, excluding foreign manufac-
tured goods, as an encouragement
and aid to the development of in
dustries in our own country. The
Mckinley law does not exclude the
"pauper labor" produced tin of the
old world, and therefore affords our
tin miners no protection whatever
in the development of our mines, as
the Statesman admits but it does,
as we have before charged, furnish
additional protection to our already
heavily protected iron workers. 1t
protects the manufacturers of the
sheet iron, who are our real tin
workers, and who import foreign
block tin into this country, melt it
at their shops, dip their doubly pro-
tected sheet iron into it, and then
audaciously sell it as american
tin." No more palpable and dis
honest deception and fraud was
ever perpetrated or practiced, and
in making the confession that tin
is not protected, that is that Amer
lean tin is not protected, our pro-
lection friend of the Statesman has
put himself in the unpleasant posi-
ton of the man who impaled him.
self on his own spear. He has adj
mitted the fraudulent character of
the Mckinley law, in a needless at
tempt to deny that we prohibit the
importation of tin; for he knew
manufactured tin was meant in our
article. The Statesman goes on to
say: "The question at issue is
whether we shall make the tin plate
we use, amounting to $2O,OOO,OOO
or more annually, or continue to
purchase it from England" We
deny that there is any such issue
raised by the Mckinley law. Under
that law we are at liberty to import
all of our tin free of duty; but we
are compelled to pay our iron mas
tiers about $50 per cent for permit
ting them to dip their protected
iron into imported tin. But, and
we ask the reader to make a note of
this, if Armour & Co., or the Stand
ard Oil Company, our heaviest i'm
porters Of tin plate, bring a cargo
of the same tin into the country
they, these wealthy men, are allowed
a rebate of SO per cent ON all of
that cargo of imported tin in which
they export their goods. This gives
to the government per cent of the
tariff on tin, which, as everybody
knows, does not pay the cost of its
collection and disbursement. How
then does it protect any tin or tin
1t does not; and
We feel like laughing at the man
who thinks it does. But like all
tariffs, it extorts-although in an
unusually direct manner-from the
many to give to the few. It allows
the rich man a rebate at the cost of
government, but exacts the last far.
thing from the .wage-earners' din
ner pail.