Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1892-09-23

entire decrease of 9l00ths of | per cent oc-
Cured after this law was passed for the
benefit of the workingman.
Now, Mr.. President, on these questions
concerning wholesale and retail prices cost
of living and rates of wages, have pre-
sented the figures made by the statistician
of the committee, based upon the actual
returns made to us by the agents who were
| sent ont, not to take anybody's statement
or anybody's testimony or hear nybody's
argument, but to 90 to the books showing
the actual transactions in the retail stores
III these seventy cities; to go to the pay
rolls in the manufacturing establishments,
and take from them the exact amount of
wages paid on the first of each month
covered by this investigation, and conf
IDENTIFY submit the results to the senate
and the country rs complete vindication
OF the Judgment pronounced by the people
| upon the policy of high protection at the
election i'll 1890 There was no attempt at
misrepresentation or deception except upon
the part of those who had become alarmed
at the consequences of their own favorite
measure of legislation. The people were
not deceived then and they will not be de-
ceived now by any false deductions made
from this report, or by any frantic appeals
to save the country from the imaginary
horrors of free trade
Tax on Poor Peoples Clothes.
AS / have already said, the articles Sc
lected by the committee were, with a few
insignificant exceptions, the products of
our own country, and the sums which l
have given to the senate as representing
the increase in prices and in the cost of
a rtl II
any rise which may have taken place in
the prices of imported articles on account
of the very large increases in the rates of
duty contained in the tariff act of 1890.
Why, Mr.. President, the increased price of
the $l9, 9,59l $50 worth of wooden goods which
were imported into this country between
Oct l. 1890, the date of the passage Of the
Mckinley bill, and the Both day of June,
1891, the end of that fiscal year. amounted
TO many millions of dollars.
The report of imports and consumption
for the fiscal year 1891, furnished to us by
the treasury department. embraces and
mingles together all the importations
which were made during that year, for the
purpose of showing the ad valorem rate of
tax, whether they were made before or
after Oct. l, 1890. and therefore reduces the
average ad valorem rate of taxation to
much lower figure than it actually was
under the Mckinley act. At the expense
OF great deal of time and labor have Sc
lected from this report those articles of
woolen manufacture which were imported
after Oct. /, 1890. and which therefore
paid the increased rates of duty imposed
by the Mckinley tariff act, and / find the
result to be that the total importations of
woolen manufactures, including yarns,
which cost us abroad SIS, ,59l, $50, paid an
al valorem late of 92.I per cent. The
amount Of duty paid on these goods was
$lS, l92,33S, so that it cost, without includ-
ing anything for insurance, commissions,
freight or interest or any other charge,
S37, ,tS5, ,0S0 to lay down in New York goods
which cost abroad $40, ,591 $50
An elaborate table was here presented,
showing the imports of wOolen goods from
Oct. l, $780, to June 80, 1871
Let us take for illustration quality of
dress goods in most common use among
the people. The total value abroad of that
class of goods imported after the passage
of the Mckinley act was s., ,22S0, ,S41, the tax
on them was s, ,423, 422, the ad valorem
rate of taxation upon this s., 2S0, ,S41 worth
of Goods purchased and consumed by our
people was 10210 per cent. The cost of
these goods abroad was 22S cents per
square yard, the tax was %. AZ per square
yard, and. adding the tax. it made the
total cost to lay them down in New York,
without any charge for commissions,
freight or insurance, 1870 per yard, so
that the goods which cost abroad IS. $50, ,S4I
cost the importer at New York, without
any of the other usual charges, $40, 20, ,264.
But we are told by the author of the
Mckinley act that we ought not to be dis
turbed about this, because the foreigner
pays the tax. II so, here is the most re-
markable instance Of disinterested benev-
olence ever witnessed in a commercial
transaction between people of different
countries, for the foreigner actually gave
to the people of the United States between
Oct. l, 1890, and June 80, 1891, S, $50, SAL
worth OF these goods and paid them more
than Sac, 600 in money to induce them to
take them.
The goods of which am now speaking
constitute the class most largely imported
and sold to the masses Of the people of the
United States, not to rich people, but to
poor people and people in moderate cir
cumstances, as senators will see when
give the description of the goods.
think that anybody who examines this
table, which makes a correct exhibit of
the importations OF these goods after the
passage of the Mckinley net. and the rates
of taxation upon them, will scarcely ever
contend hereafter that the foreign pro-
ducer pays the duty-he will go back to
the old ''delusion" with which my friend
from Iowa (Mr. Allison) says he was af-
flicted in 1870, that the American con-
sumer pays at least part Of it.
Mr.. Allison-I have not gotten over that
yet.
Mr.. Carlisle-The senator says he has
not recovered yet. But the senator may
believe now that the foreign producer pays
some part Of the tax upon articles imported
into this country. II he does, he has,
either by mistake or otherwise, assisted in
making gross misappropriation of the
public money in the Mckinley act, for
which he voted. That act provides that
when raw materials subject to duty are
imported into the United States and con-
verted here into manufactured articles
which are exported for sale abroad to the
citizens of other countries, the domestic
manufacturer, producer or exporter shall
have a drawback equal to the amount of
duty paid less per cent. II the foreigner
pays that duty, why in the name of COM
mon sense and common honesty do we pass
law to pay it back to the Standard Oil
company, or to somebody else who exports
OILS, meats or cans made from imported
tin plate? An honest legislator who be-
heves the foreigner pays the tax would in
sst upon giving it back to the foreigner
who sold us the tin plate out of which the
cans were manufactured, and not to the
corporations and others who convert that
material into cans and then export them
and their contents to be sold abroad to the
people of other countries at lower prices
than they can be sold to their own fellow
citizens. l therefore feel justified in say
ing that no gentleman who supported the
Mckinley act in congress, nor Mr.. McKin-
ley himself, although he goes about the
country proclaiming that the foreigner
pays the duty, really believes word of it.
But tender an apology to the senate for
attempting to discuss such an absurd
proposition.
Now, Mr.. President, while speaking of
tin plate l ought to refer to statement
made by the senator from Rhode Island.
that the people Of the United States paid
to the Welsh manufacturers of that article
in the year 1891 seventy-six cents per box
more than the profits which they were
realizing before that time This is I'M
doubtedly too true. 1t is certainly true
that the Mckinley act was n great bless
ing to the Welsh manufacturers Of tin