The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-10-27

cent much greater reduction was made.
10 demonstrate the magnitude OF these
several reductions il is only necessary for
me To saw that il the rates OF duty im-
posed prior 10 1870 had been collected ON
the importatio. n Of 1887 the amount OF
duties collected in the latter year would
have been S359. 600. 900, or sl29.OOO,OOO more
than were actually collected at our Gus
tom houses.
By the act OF 1890 the rate OF duty col
lected on all imports in 1897, dutiaDle and
free, was fraction over Il per cent? II
upon these importations the war tariu
rates Lad BEEN levied the average rate
would have been ol per cent OF their
value.
Although the Republican party of to-
day steadfastly maintains the policy OF
the great founders OF the government.
with the same intent and with the same
happy result, / need not add that widely
different conditions In 1877 make the pro-
lection of our manufacturers and work
ingmen a much more difficult task now
than in 1889, when Washington signed
the first protective tariff act. At that
time we had no steam communication
with Europe; we had no ocean telegraph;
we had noLe OF the facilities OF trans
portation which we have now. An order
sent abroad by an American merchant TO
an English manufacturer required from
four TO six months before 1T could he
filed The cost OF transportation alone
was at least 10 per cent OF the cost OF
all articles imported. Now the foreign
manufactures has an Office in New York,
and delivers his goods To his American
customers with as little cost of trans
portation and as little delay as the manu-
facturers of Philadelphia or New Eng
land
This remark able change in the condi-
tions is not more marked than the reduc-
tions in tariff rates in successive protec-
tive tariff acts / will mention lew of
these as indicative of the general course.
The duty of indigo by the act Of 1889 was
10 cents pound; il was increased to 80
cents in 1873, aud 1t Is now on the free
list. The duty on raw cotton under the
tariff of Washin ston aud Jefferson was
three cents per pound; 1t Is now free.
Salt was formerly dutlable at so cents
per 100 pounds; under the act OF 1890 the
duty is s and IL cents. BltuminouS coal
by The act of 1916 was dutiable at 81 40 "A
ton: the duty was increased by various
stages until 1872, whel it was Sl.15. 1t is
now IS cents. Anthracite coal under the
earlier acts had the same rate as
bituminous. Ii is now free. Sheet
iron, of which we hear so much
from our tariff reform friends. was duti-
able at ga to cents per pound the duty
is now | cent. Pig iron paid a duty OF
| $40 and Sl2. 80 per ton In the earlier acts !;
! it is now dutiable at 50 ~. Loaf sugar
was taxed " in 1916 at IL cents pound !;
il is now dutiable at one-half OF / cent.
Cotton cloth, "A commodity of universal
use, was in 1916 rated at minimum rate
of 81 cents a yard. and this rate received
the earnest and active support Of John G.
! Calhoun. IL was not until he was con-
! vinced that the maintenance OF u protec-
tive tariff meant the death OF American
slavery that the great Southern leader
| opposed protection. The minimum duty
| on colt ons was Increased to ~ cents in
| 1924, to ss4 cents in 1928. reduced in 1892 To
| ~ cents. aud then to cents square
| yard. The minimum rate imp lsed bj the
| tariff of 1890 is 2 cenus a square yard.
From 1851 to 1884 the Increase in wages
| in the United States was 10 per cent. and
! the decline in the cost OF living was 30 per
! cent During the same years in Great
Britain, according to the authority of
| Prof. Levi, average wages increased 30 per
/ cent and the cost of living IL per cent,
| making a net increase OF l3 per cent IN
| Great Britain, as against lOO per cent. in
the United States.
The average earnings of all the persons
| engaged in tue manufacturing establish
ments of Philadelphia ia 1880 were s3i6,
and in 1890 S529. an increase in ten years
| OF $ls3 The average earnings Of all the
| wage-earners of Great Britain in lSJ
| were Sly9, 50 that the annual evenings o
| operatives and mechanics of Philadel-
| phia increased nearly rs much in slugle
d. cade AS the entire earnings of the peo
| pie of Great Britain.
Can any man say, in face OF these
figures, that the protective policy has not
! increased wages and given TO our people
uuequaled prosperity?
NELSON W. ALDRIcH.