Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1892-09-14

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 n
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. l, 1890, and which therefore
paid the increased rates of duty imposed
by the Mckinley tariff act, and 1 find the
result to be that the total importations of
~oolen manufactures, including warns
which cost us abroad 1850, $50, paid an
ad valorem rate of 92.Sf per cent. The
amount of duty paid on these goods was
SIS, 1872 ,338, so that it cost, without includ-
ing anything for insurance, commissions,
freight or interest or any other charge,
S37, 7S5, $50 to lay down in New York goods
which cost abroad 1851, ESQ.
An elaborate table was here presented,
showing the imports of wooden goods from
Oct /, 1890, to June so, 1891
LET us take for illustration a 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., 2sO, ,S41, the tax
on them was IS, 44223 1894 422, the ad valorem
rate of taxation upon this &, ,2sO, 81 worth
of goods purchased and consumed by our
people was 102.70 per cent. The cost of
these goods abroad was 22S cents per
square yard, the tax was 23.42 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, 45.70 per yard, so
that the goods which cost abroad S, ,2s0, ,S1
cost the importer at New York, without
any of the other usual charges, $40, ,70i, ,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. If so, hero is the most re-
markable instance of disinterested benev-
olence ever witnessed in q 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., PSI, 81
worth of these goods and paid them more
than S142, GOO in money to induce them to
take them.
The goods of which am row 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
eumstances, as senators will see when
give the description of the goods.
think that anybody who examines this
table, which makes correct exhibit of
the importations of these goods after the
passage of the Mckinley act, 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-
ficted 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 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
manufacturer, 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
a 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-
lieves 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
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. I 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 a 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 q 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 un-
doubtedly too true. 1t is certainly true
that the Mckinley act was great bless
ing 10 the Welsh manufacturers of tin
plate, and enabled them to take from the
people Of the United States as shall pro-
ceed to show, many millions of dollars over
and above the profits which they were
making before its passage.
1.-THE 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 continuedl:
1t 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-
tiers, not to the government, not to the
dealers here, but directly into the pockets
OF the Welsh tin plate manufacturers, the
sum of 81, ,629, $50 as surplus profit on their
sales, which was considerably more than
half the value of their plant manufacture
of that article.
An Injustice of tho Tariff.
Mr.. President, it is 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 ornanientation or for any other purpose,
1t becomes subject to the woolen goods
duty. which. even in the case of the. cheap