Morning journal and courier., 1891-06-29
CONIMUNICATIONS.

The Tariff on Composition Leaf
How tho Register Misstates Fig
ures.
To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
In your last Mondays issue 1 published
a letter in reply to editorials in the even
ing Register of June 1S and 20, wherein
the Register stated that the tariff on CON-
position metal leaf was not q protective
one as the article was not made m this
country. In my letter referred to, I stated
that since the Mckinley bill went into Of
feet it had been, and at last accounts was
being made in this country, and that my
firm had bought and used it, paying eighty
cents, which is ton cents per pack more
than paid for the imported before the
Mckinley bill, and thirty-dve centsper pack
less than the Register claims the importe d
article can be bought for now. further
stated that I could buy the imported arti-
Gle at 81 per pack, and would accept an
order from the manufacturing concern re-
ferred to by the Register at s1.10, which
would furnish me profit of ten per cent,
and make a saving of five cents
for the Registers manufacturing
concern. The Register of the Gath in no.
ticing my letter quotes me as saying that
have to pay 81. 10 per pack for the import
ed, whereas said could buy it for 81 and
would take an order from the concern re-
ferred to by the Register for s1.1O. That
misrepresentation weakens the force of my
argument just two-thirds of 10 cents, which
is the difference between our figures and
theirs. In order to wipe out the other
e-third difference it misquotes its own
editorial of the 18th in saying that the ed
itorial of that date said the price had gone
up in consequence of the Mckinley bill to
81. 10, whereas the editorial of the 18th
said $1.15. The Register said the market
price was 81 15 I said it was 81. Now it raiess
my price 10 cents and lowers its own price
5 cents in misquoting its editorial and my
letter, and according to present showing
Register further said on the 18th that
the price paid before tho Mckinley
bill by the manufacturing concern it re-
fers to but fsils to name was 663 cents. I
said that my firm paid 70 cents at that
time, and presumed the difference could
be accounted for in the quality.
The Register being caught in giving fc-
ton for fact by a man who uses the COM
position leaf, first raises my prices and
lowers its own in order to diminish the
force of my argument to nothing and
then shows its true inwardness by trying
to explain that the reason our firm paid
seventy cents per pack, while the other
concern pays sixty-six and one-half, is to
be accounted for tho difference in the
credit of the two firms. Well, all 1 have
to say to that is that the firm of Gay
Brothers & Co. of New York, to which
I belong, is rated in the Mercantile Agency
as worth two hundred and fifty to three
hundred thousand dollars and credit good.
What is the rating of the Register! Let
them print it.
If the Register wishes me to give names
and addresses of those that l have bought
domestic leaf of or to pursue this question
further it can be accommodated on one
condition, namely: First, correct all its
misquotations and take back the slur it
| made on my firms credit. Then l will tell
| it where the American leaf is being made
| and the name of another firm that intends
| to make it and also where l can buy i'm
ported leaf for 81 that its manufacturing
concern has to pay 81. Is for.
By the way, according to the Register g
way of accounting for the difference in
| prices as quoted to its concern and to my
| firm their credit must be very shaky tc
| have 20 per cent. added to cover risks,
| for the Register intimates that five cents
| is added to my price for that purpose and
they pay fifteen cents more than l do. !
will prove every assertion I have made
when the Register corrects its misrepre,
| sentations. CHARLES GAY, Jr.,
| Tonfine Hotel