Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-10-13
HARRAH TO SMITH.
He Wants to Know Where That 90
PEI Cent Mill Is.
Also whose Wages Have iJcen Raised by
the Mckinley Bili ana why Protection
Docs Not Protect.

the Mckinley Bill ana why Protection
Does Not Protect.
Hon. Charles Emory Smith, Editor of
tie Philadelphia Press, Phaddelphia. In
my thirst for knowledge | purchased a
copy of your valuable paper this morn
ing and read with much interest your
editorial on the difficulty of getting me
to understand u plain statement of facts
Mine is not receptive mind and must
crave your indulgence and that of the
Manufacturers Club of this city, if do
not readily grasp the beneficient fea-
lures Of the Mckinley tariff act, which
you and they so kindly undertook to
explain to me on the 23d of last month.
1t will be source of satisfaction to
yon to know that in explaining the
features of this bill to me, you will also
be instructng II number of wage carners
here in Philadelphia, who, like myself
have not yet been able to see wherein
they are benefited by the act, but who
understand just as well as | do where
the great benefit comes to the manu-
facturer.
One of the speakers at the business
mems meeting made the remarkable
statement that serious defections exist
that they had actually begun to think
for themselves, and possibly their votes
could not be counted upon for the cleo
tlon of Harrison and Reid (Which you
and have so much at heart on the Sth
of November next. Therefore it be-
hooves you and the Manufacturers Club
all the more to be untiring in your eff
forts to convince the minds of these men
lie far hai Ian a Ia
kinley bill was passed, and to this end
Will lend you my efforts by asking
| few more questions OF you, which |
know you can explain readily to the
| satisfaction OF all of us ignorant wage
earnGrs. OF course We do not look upon
| the statement made by that gentleman
as serious, because we know that the
| state is safe for Harrison and Reid by at
least 10000 majority, but nevertheless it
| Is well mot be too sure and to not give
any chances to the other side to get in
their men.
According to your paper this morn
| ing % per cent of the price Of steel rails
! goes to pay for labor in the manufacture
OF this article. steel rails are selling to-
day at $50 per ton at the mills. DO |
understand you to mean by that that
there is any mill in this country or any
where else that pays 10 its men $27 per
ton for the manufacture Of its rails and
allows iOr the purchase OF raw material,
interest and depreciation Of paint and
snndry expenses only So per ton!
| Would you mind telling me where
that mill is situated and what brand of
| plG-iron il is that they use in the manu-
tacturc of their rails In reply to my
question why it would not be beneficial
to all concerned manufactures, con-
sumers and wage earncrS-tu take off
the duty on iron ores, you say in your
/ most interesting editorial that it is a
hopeless task to inform me about the
| difference "betwecn Il tariff on sugar, of
| which We produce less than 10 per cent
OF the amount consumed in this country,
and tariff on an article of which we
| produce more than we consume" If
that be the case-if it is your honest
opinion that the tariff should be removed
on all raw material OF which we produce
but small quantities in comparison to
our consumption-may | ask you to
kindly advocate in your payer, and may
/ ask the manufacturers Club to adyo-
| cate i'll their valuable organ, that the
tax on flax aud wool be removed at the
next session of Congress! AS UNDER
stand it, the production of flax and
wool 10 this country is infintesimal
compared to the amount which we have
to import and compared to the quantity
Of manufactured product that our mills
turn out from these two articles.
May | ask you again whether the
passage of the Mckinley act was not
the direct result Of the election of lIarri.
son and Morton ia 1885, and is it not a
fact that the expenses of the campaign
were paid chiefly by the subscriptions
raised among the manufacturers? Pre-
sumlng this TO be an established and in.
controVertable fact, am not right in
saying that the Mckinley bill Is the
property Of the manufacturers, because
It was they who paid for it, pnd under
the common law the man who makes a
purchase and pays for ii is the owner Of
the property that he buysg
May ask you further, whether any.
one Of the subscribers to the fund ut tie
time he made his subscription had Inc
slightest idea that he was doing it fDi
the purpose Of paying 30 per cent d
the cost of the article that he manufac
, lures to his men?
+ VIII You kindly give me the name o
, any one individual who had that though
| in his mind at that tlmc and who hat
, been paying 80 per cent Of the cost .
the article he manufactures in wages t,
his men ever since?
Is II not Il fact that as a reward TO
their subscriptions the firm of Carnegie
! l'hlpps ~ Co. received from the nay,
) department contract for 1000 tons o
arhor Plate, at an average price Of $5lt
!. per ton?
z Aud was not this contract, may ash
Z incidentally, given u that firm withou
; any competition Or any invitation u am
4. other mil! to bid on the contract ii
: question:
+ Am to understand from Your edi
a toriRI that Carne sic, phipp8 " Go. ar
0 paying their men 30 per cent Of tn,
I price they receive for the armor plate
q a. wages:
= pr, IN other words, are they pawn.
7 70 their men or to any man In their Gin
+ ploy SlSG per ton FIR every ton of lruo
lats proiuc:H? II such be the case,
= woulu mention right here that it woul
4 not be possible tUr me to keen Il stngi
l. man at MiIyae Thry would all il
q maSing Il break for Mulnall and an
II plying for work at Homestead, and
il would add that would be among In
4 number applying for u job ut that place
y II has uttu stated BY Major Mcknlo
?, and w the Alanulacturers' CLUB ana b
II yourself in your columns repeatedly
" that the tariff has resulted in aincreas
e of wages.
rresuming that this statomen. is col
i rect, may | ask You how much tn
s. wages OF a school teacher have been ii
u L... Al