New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-09-03

The manufacturers here assert shat. while their
tin cans may cost them more under the new
tariff than formerly. yet by economies IN thc
manufacture of canned goods, and by IN" larger
volume Of their business owing TO purchases from
prosperous working people. they are able u SOIL
them at profit even at lower rates than those
asked in 800. | asked one of them to tell me
what was the increased price of his fin cans at
present as compared with 800. He replied "A
box Of tin-plate makes twenty-five and half
dozens of three pound tin cans The average price
Of our tin-pate in 1890 was $4 30 per box ms
yesr We paid 81 90 per box That box paId al
additional duty Of 81 90, yet the advance TO us
Ia oulv 60 cents The additional cost per dozen
on three pound tomato can is about ) cents per
dozen On the smaller two-round cans, In whlch
we put up corn, string beans. and fresh fruits te
gresman Bunting, Of this State, has said that the
Increased cost OF the would amount 70
cents dozen That ia rot our experience more.
ever, he has tried 10 convince the farmers una,
If we had to pay more for tin cans they wouId
get loss for the vegetables which they sell to us
for canning. Here again he Is mistaken. Inc
farmers here in Monroe County have Obtained
from rs Just rs good prices for their vegetables
as before the Mckinley act was passed indeed IN
the case Of some vegetables better prices. The
fact IS that American ingenuity and business
methods have cheapened the cost of manufactur-
ing tin canned goods. SO that We can aHofu 10
sell most Of them at lower prices than we hId m
1890, and do 10, notwitnetahohS tie iicrcaeru
cost Of the cans. The American canning and
preserving industry Is in fur better CONDITION
dian it was in three years ago: Why? Because
the well-paid American w9rkinsmaan, can letter
larger number Of Americans are employed IN the
canning and preserving industry; The manu-
factare Of jam, for instance, has been added 70
our products The consumer Of American preserves.
iaIns and canned gods buys these articles at
lower price than he did in 1890. Who has been
harmed? ?"
A manufacturer. in reply to a question con-
c..ening wages, said The American manu-,
the protection afforded by the tariff When was
NJ Carluk near Glasgow. few years ago. !
learned that the women In Jam factory there
make from 81 "a TO 81 40 a week. Here some Of
our women make from g. 10 so. and there are
$50 women in orr employ who earn from "
10 SO so week. Our men are paid higher wages
for doing more skiful work.
From all these statements OF facts II y clear
that the American consumer Of tn-canned goods
has yet 10 learn from personal experience that
there is any duty npon Tin. Nearly all the Tin
lower in price than they Were when the Mckinley
act was passed What is highly satisfactory. n
new industry, that Of the manufacture OF Jam
has been created, and the American consumer OF
this article can buy either the American or the
English jam at lower price than he did In
1890 On the whole the robbcr tariff seems
to bp filling the American pocketbook rather than
cmptying il. Certainly the farmers about Roch-
ester have larger bank accounts than they had
In 1900 and snch gains b. they have made have
hecn in consequence Of the establishment OF the
Jam industry, offering market for their small
fruits. The number Of working people employed
In one establishment alone has been increased by
rs.veral hundreds. There is more work for
Americans. better prices for farm produce, and
the consumer has not paid the piper while pro
ducers have been dancing Even with the tim
plate industry, partially developed canned Goods
have not been rsis-d in price. and the ultimate
cheapeniug Of the tins is inevitable.