Middletown transcript., 1892-10-06

1851 were invoiceo at an average value
of / 40 cents per pound. On this
basis the new duty was equal TO 93 per
cent. On merely nominal import In
the last fiscal year, 1891-92, the Treasury
reports the specific duty collected as
equivalent to S8.05 per cent. Those
rates have been practically prohibitive
of all importations Of ties Of foreign
manufacture. The old rate OF 35 per
cent ad valorem amounted to tax OF
s 39-1OO cents per bale. The new duty
is equal to tax of II 3-1O cents per
bale on the basis that II pounds OF ties
are used per bale which estimate, it
will be noted, agrees very closely with
the statement Of Senator Allison 3 and
39-100 equal 13 39-100 cents.
The cotton tie tax is burden i'm
posed upon single important industry
under the false claim of protection to
another industry. The Southern farm
ers must now pay tax Of IA $40 cents
per bale in order to enable the iron
manufacturers of Pennsylvania and
Ohio to make cotton ties and sell them
to the planters for S8 5-10 per cent
more than other people would be glad
to furnish them.
Ala 3-10cents tax on single bale is
not much but IA $40 cents tax on
the estimated crop of 1891, supposing
all the cotton to be baled with iron
ties, as it mainly is, amounts to over
one million two hundred thousand dol
lars Isl, 100000 And this approx
imately represents the sum which the
representatives of one of the smallest
branches of the domestic iron industry
asked and had given to them by q Re-
publican Congress as q reward for pros.
ecuting a business which has no moro
claim on the country for support or
gratuity than has the digging of pota-
toes, the shelling of corn, the driving OF
a hackney coach, or the shaving OF
mems faces.
A reference TO the Commerce and
Navigation Report of the United States
Treasury" for 1891 would have
shown that on the comparatively small
quantity of ties imported 1922, the
Government collected S8.O5 per cent OF
their foreign market value.
This tax was not only paid primarily
by the Southern farmers and laborers
who produced the cotton, but it was
burden upon them ultimately and ex'
clusively. They could not and did moi
add it to the price Of their product ir
the market and thus diffuse it upon ths
entire community. The market prices
of cotton during the last two years show
this conclusively, for from II cents PEI
pound in New York in September, 1890
the price has gradually decreased t.
less th an cents in the summer of 1892
That is, the planters have received les
for the cotton now than they did befor'
the Mckinley Bill, and notwithstand
ing that they have been taxed to the ex
tent of 88.05 per cent more on thei
cotton ties than they had to pay tw'
years ago.
1t is misnomer to call the duty OF
cotton-ties tax for in the case of
true tax the State receiving it under
takes to give something of protection
benefit, or relief in return to the tax
PAYERS. But in this case there is NJ
protection or benefit Of any kind give
| to the American cotton farmer as IL com
pensation for the increased cost of til
ties through the tariff The act, a
though sanctioned by Legislation,
simply spoliation and robbery /; an
spoliation and robbery Of a class !
producers who least of all can afford /
sustain the burden of q discria,iaa:;n
tax, and whom it is the duty ,.f Il
government to especially foster ,.h'i el
| onuraUa