Hot Springs weekly star. (Hot Springs, S.D.) 1892-1917, 1892-04-22
sharp Answers TO MoMilin's Gross nlis
stAtementA

sharp nswers 60 MoMiilin's Gross Mis-
stAtaments
The speech of Congressman McMillin,
who opened the tariff debate for the
Democratic party in the House of Rep
reeentatives last Wednesday, was a sig
nal failure. We shall take at random q
dozen of the free trade orators aeser-
tons, and show their falsity, and then
| We shall drop Mr.. McMillin.
The speech began US follows:
/. Mr.. Chairman, the last Congress inn
in this country.
From the last annual report of the
chief of the Bureau of Statistics we
learn that the average ad valorem rate
on dutsb BILE imports has exceeded 45A
per cent. during ten different years.
The average ad valorem rate on all inn
ports under the Mckinley law is now
about gig per cent, less thanit has been
for thirty years, less than it was during
ten years of the Walker tariff, less in
fsct than it was under our frs tariff of
q century ago. In 1866 the duty collect
ed per capita was S4.@. In 1882 it was
SAP. For the four years preceding
the passage of the Mckinley bill it ex-
ceeded $500. During the first twelve
months Of the new tariff it was less
AsSA WE AA 1919 1893 tudn ~ D0I C6uls
of our i%mp0rtations came in free. Now
90 per cent. come in free.
ii. Mr.. McMillin says 'tthe tariff law has
now been in operation for enc year and
five months"
Part Of it has, but part has not. The
most important changes in the bill add
ed sugar to the free list and increased
the duty on tin-plate. The former took
effect less than twelve months ago.
while the latter has been in operation
less than nine months.
Ill: ! challenge any representative here
to point to o single line OF manufactures in
which the labOrer'S wages has been III
creased by that law.
How about plush, pearl buttons, lin
en-. cutlery and other Industries estab.
lished or aided blythe new tariff? Free
traders collect a dozen instances of re-
duction in wages. They pass over every
reported instance of Increased employ.
ment and advanced wages directly
traceable to the tariff. The last annual
report of the Bureau of Statistics of La
Dor of New York State shows that in
!,9il cases wages were increased, while
in HI cases wages were reduced. 1t
further shows that a reduction in the
hours of labor took place in 2,OS5 in
stances, all of which should be counted
as increased pay. Could we present
the statistics from every state it would
be shown that the Mckinley bill was
indeed a laborers' bill. Mr.. McMillin
does not speak of the present condition
OF h laborers of free trade England.
~. The laborer has been forced to pay
more for the roof tina shelters him, for the
hat that covers his head. and the woolens
that cover mis- back. He has had to nav
more for the linen he wears, the hammer
and hoe with which he works.
With one exception the price of ey-
erything MI. McAIillln names is lower
now than before the bill passed-in fact,
is cheaper than ever before in our
history.
v. The act of 1883 imposed an average
rate OF As per cent. The two acts of 1890,
which su%pplanted it. have imposed an
average OF nearly 10 per cent.
The last figures at hand bearing on
this statement are those ending Sep
TENDER 80, 1891. During the twelve
months ending on that day our inn
ports were valued as follows:
Free Of s!!e. 49,. 4so
Total aH. duties ie.;; collected during these 1882 'ss' Cos
If Mr.. McMiilin cares to get at the
truth he can divide $780,, O4O. O2O by Sab
203, 165, and he will find that instead of
our average rate being 60 per cent. it
was only AZ, while on the total imports.
the honest way of reckoning, it was only
% per cent, and is still less for the
calendar year 1881.
vi. 1t is true that fifty odd millions of
dollars was taken off the sugar tax, But
this was no free-will offering, for the same
Gnnncpro nrNVvSAnH Fnr tk~ -
twelve millions to the producers of sugar
as b0untleS.
Government estimates are that the
amount of bounties for the current wear
will amount to Sc, 793, 900, almost ali of
which will go to Southern sugar growers.
The Mckinley law ia not q sectional
law" as every Democratic tariff has
been.
VII. Again, while the fifty odd millions
of tax was taken off sugar, increase of du-
ties. amounting to about sixty-five millions,
was put on other things and generally on
the measures of life.
The amountof duties collected during
the fiscal year preceding the Mckinley
tariff act was $226. $40, O37. During the
first twelve months of the operation, of
the new tariff the duties collected
amounted TO only $l93, 040, 900. 4O-a de.
SAooSo Va POoSooV?VASS 6AO Vul6 WILL W
much further reduced under a whole
year with free sugar. Whereas MI. Nc
Millin's increase of $685. 1000?
VIII. When an American citizen buys
here an article manufactured abroad he
pays for not only the original cost abroad,
but the cost of transportation to this cOun-
try and the duty collected at the port of
entry, and when he uses and consumes the
article he pays the tax imposed by the gov
eminent.
Why then have the Chemnitz hosiery
makers, the Sheffield cutlery manu-
facturers, the tin plate bsrons of Wales
reduced their prices to meet the in.
creased duty on their wares? Why
does the Canadian sell his barley for
less than the New York farmer gets for
his? These people confess and COM
plain that they pay the duty.
TX. II the foreigner and not our citizen
pays the duty, why did we relieve him
from paying millions of tax for us on
sugar? Why not let him continue to pay
the fifty odd millions?
Protectionists never claim that the
tariff is not . tax IN imported articles
which we cannot produce in this coun-
| trp. The tariff on tAa or cofEao fnow