Waterbury evening Democrat., 1892-08-29

rom Iowa IAff. AIltson) says he was ar- dicted in 1870. that the American con- sumer pays at least a part of it.
 MT. Allison-I have not gotten over that yet.
 MT. 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. If he does. he has, either by mistake or otherwise, assisted in making a 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 manufactures, producer or exporter shall have drawback equal to the amount of duty paid less per cent. If 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 platef An honest legislator who be- heves the foreigner pays the tax would in sist upon giving it back to the foreigner | who sold us the tin plate out of which the cans were manufactured, and not to the
 
 material into cans and then export them and their contents to be sold abroad to the people of other countries at lower prices l than theycan 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 MT. McKin- | ley himself, although he goes about the 1 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, MT. President, while speaking of tin plate ought to refer to statement l made by the senator from Rhode Island, that the people of the United States paid l 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 un- | doubtedly too true. It is certainly true | that the Mckinley act was a great bless ing to the Welsh manufacturers of tin plate and enabled them to take from the people of the United States, as I shall pro- ceed to show, many millions of dollars over and above the profits which they were making before it's passage.
 LThe senator here presented tables show ing the cost of producing tin plate in Wales and the advance in price there in anticipa-
 tion of the Mckinley bill. and continued]:
 It appears therefore that the people of
 the United States, before the increased
 rate of duty on tin plate took effect under
 the Mckinley act, paid, not to the impor-
 ters, not to the government, not to the
 dealers here, but directly into the pockets
 of the Welsh tin plate manufacturers, the
 sum of $4, ,629, 750 as a surplus profit on their
 sales which was considerably more than
 half the value of their plant manufacture
 of that article.
 An Injustice of the Tariff.
 | MT. President, it is a broad statement to
 make, but the Mckinley act increased the
 duty on every fabric that contains single
 thread or fiber of wool, and in most cases
 the increase was very large. If an article
 of silk is found to contain thread of wool
 for ornamentation or for any other purpose,
 it becomes subject to the woolen goods
 duty, which, even in the case of the cheap
 est woolen fabrics used by the poor, is
 much higher than the duty on the finest
 silk fabrics used by the rich.
 Ihave here number of samples of woolerI
 and worsted goods imported under the Nc
 Kinley act, with statements showing their
 cost abroad in 1889 and 1890, their cost abroad now, the duty imposed upon them 7 in 1889 and 1890, the duty imposed upon them now, and the increased cost to lay them down at New York to the consumer. Elaborate tables were presented] l The prices dDTOdu nave 1dll6u necessarily | because the cost of the raw material, wool and cotton, has gone down in the market; but the people of the United States, by the passage of the tariff act and the imposition
 of higher rate of duty upon these goods have been wholly deprived of the benefits l which they should have received, and ought to have received on account of the , decreased cost of the materials entering | into the manufacture of the articles they | consume The cotton grower and the wool
 grower alike are compelled to take lower
 prices for their products and to pay higher ! prices for the goods manufactured from them.
 l The Protected Manufacturer. 5 The necessary effect of the Mckinley act } is to enable the manufacturers of these f articles at home to keep up the prices to a certain figure, no matter what may be the . diminution in the cost of their raw mate : rial or in the wages of their laborers, be cause the high duty protects them against competition abroad so long as they keeI 3 their prices just below the point which - would enable the importer to bring them in and realize a profit after paying the I duty. What that point is the domestic . manufacturer always knows very well, be 2 cause he keeps himself informed in rela tion to the foreign prices of the articles he 8 produces, and he therefore permits impor f tations in two cases only: First, when ht ,i cannot produce the particular quality o a produce them in sufficient quantities tt .! supply the home demand.