Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1892-07-27


SEIZED uIe.
In a recent issue the New York Times
said:
There are several gentlemen in Mime
3D0llS who ShQuIQ not overlook this news
IL 9, about the strikes. Que of them is
II. W Oliver, chairman OF the conyentiOn's
sub committee on tnc tariff, who reported
30 the iron and steel manufacturers after
tue passage OF the Mckinley bill that the
rates In the new iron aud steel schedule
were those proposed by the manufacture
ers themselves. Another is eX-SpeakGT
Reed, who declared that the manufacturers
had obtained just what they wanted"
In answer to this the American Econ
Omist makes these valuable suggestions
for the consideration of the free traders
and the strikers: As for the tin plate
schedule, the only important one in
which higher duties were imposed, we
propose to show how and by whom
that schedule was framed. In 1888,
while the Mills bill was under discus
sion, the Amalgamated Association OF
Iron and Steel Workers, the very asso-
citation whose members are now having
trouble over the adjustment of the wage
scale, petitioned Congress as follows:
The Mills bill places tin plate on the
free list. Whatever professions Of
friendship and Partially to American
labor the majority of the ways and
means committee may have made, this
act OF theirs IN placing tin plate on the
free list clearly indicates their real in
tentions of ultimate free trade 1t is
an act solely and absolutely in the in
terests Of British capital and labor, Sc
curing to them a monopoly Of tin plate
manufacture needed to supply the
needs and wants of the American peo-
pie. 1t is an act that implies the
Inability of American labor to produce
tin plates, or that it is better to employ
British labor at low wages to supply us
with tin plate, rather than permit the
same to be done by home labor at rea-
lSOnabie wages.
st is unnecessary that we should en-
ter here into the history of the tin plate
question in this country. Suffice it to
say that although strenuous attempts
were made between 1872 and 1873 to es-
tablish tin plate manufacture in this
country, all failed for lack OF proper en-
couragement by the government, tits.
thereon evident to our minds that
the real benefciaries of free tin plates
would be the foreign producers of the
article, foreign merchants and i'm
porters.
To the American workingman and
chief consumer no material benefit
whatever would accrue. On the other
hand, as wage earners, our workingmen
would be greatly injured. In the name
of the iron and steel workers we there
fore protest against the action of the
majority of the ways and means COM
mittee in placing tin plates on the free
list, or against any reduction in the
present duty. Wego further and earn
esdy petition Congress to seriously
mediate as to the ACCESSIBILITY of plac-
ing a protective duty on tin plates, a
duty commensurate with the higher
labor cost in this country; thus secur-
ing employment to American labor in
the production of tin plates at wages in
harmony with those now existing in
our iron and steel manufactures.
The petition then goes on to show BY
figures nd statistics that the difference
.betw cen the cost of producing one 100
pound box -of~lG@tin-p plates in Great
Britain and the United States, owing to
our higher wages. and 4Uther elem ents,
is 81 l15, this cost Being 1928 In this
country and s.. I35 IN Great Britain.
This makes a differences labor cost of
PIP cents per pound. And the rate of
duty imposed by the Mckinley LAWS
p cents per pound. - =
There is no free trade paper which
%xlL be fair 9p 6 y 3. to publish these