Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-09

fore, sending out more money than we
are receiving, although we are emitting
larger value of products than are indi-
Gated by the incoming returns.
1t is notorious that agricultural i'm
plements are dearer in Europe than in
this country. In fact, our local manu-
facturers cell in European markets at a
profit, and often at less figure than
the same articles are disposed OF in this
country. For this same reason we can
not expect to obtain agricultural imple-
ments in exchange for our products. and
we must therefore depend upon receiv-
ing compensation in the exchange OF
foreign manufactured articles. And if
we buy 10000, 600 worth of tin plates
year from Wales, and pay for it in
wheat, our farmers are clearly the bene-
fciaries.
When the Mckinley bill went into
operation we were assured that the inn
position of $4,000, 900 year, practical
ly bounty upon product of SIC, ,0O0,-
600, would result in an American output
sufficient to meet fully three-fourths of
the demand. But we have ascertained
from governmental statistics that the
output thus far has been less than per
cent OF the consumption, and that the
iron or steel sheets which enter into the
competition of the tinware of commerce
are almost wholly made abroad, and
that all that has been done in this
country is to dip per cent OF these i'm
ported articles in liquid tin, or, in the
case of terne plates, or roof tin, in a
mixture of mingled lead and tin. The
plates which are difficult and expensive
of manufacture have been mlde almost
wholly abroad.
| To use the language of Mr.. Shively, of
Indiana, "The great bulk OF the produc-
tion of tin plate reported to the agent Of
| the government consists of these black
plates, which were hot rolled, picked,
annealed and cold rolled in Wales, i'm
ported into this country, dipped in i'm
ported tin, in an imported timing pot,
| by an imported Welshman."
But the cardinal vice incident to this
tin tax and incident to all kindred inn
| positions is found in the circumstance
that we are paying bounty, subsidy
to individuals to enable them to main
| tain something which. without the
bounty or the subsidy, they could not
carry on. In other words, that we force
! all the people of this country who use
| an article entering into the processes of
! everyday life to contribute to the en-
richment and advantage of individuals.
| And the only return realized by the
| contributors is enjoyed when they point
with pride, though in poverty, to the
| fact that Americans are able to main
tain such concerns.
| THE TARIFF UPON WOOL.
Woolen clothing must be cont idered a
necessary of life; yet, with the excep-
tion of spirituous liquors. it is made the
principal source of our revenue. One
dollar out of every five in our tariff
tax is exacted from this essential. OF
all our revenue, more than one-ninth is
drawn from taxes upon wool and wooden
| goods. 1t is estimated that SAL 900, 900
of taxes are gathered upon an importa-
tion of $50 000, 900 worth of wool and wool.
! ems. In 1891 there were some $3SS ,000,-
coo worth of wo0len goods made in this
/ country, which were protected by duty
under the Mckinley bill, exceeding $50
on the $l00 worth, and yet wool growing
j is not profitable. We have not sufficient
! raw material in this country to supply
| our wants. We cannot get what we
need without paying extravagant duties.
We must buy foreign articles or pur-
chase them from those who have pro-
cured the enactment of the Mckinley
| bill.
+! But the measure has not made the
wool growers happy. They have not
discovered any increase in the value OF
their product, and the business has
never been less advantageously carried
on, especially in this part of the United
States. Four years ago / we'll remem-
Der that our Republican friends conf
IDENTIFY asserted that if Grover Cleveland
was elected, certain well-known wooden
mills in San Francisco would be closed.
He was defeated, and the mills were
closed. No more striking illustration
of the pernicious effects upon an in
dustry can be discovered than those
which are rendered apparent by the Nc
Kinley legislation upon wool. An ex-
animation of prices heretofore prevail
ing in California demonstrates beyond
cavil or controversy, that wool has been
higher here under low tariff than un-
der the enormously increased duty. We
do not produce the finest grades of wool.
1t we were able to import sufficient
| quantity of foreign material of better
quality, we could afford to pay the do
mestic producer a more Temunerative
figure.
But if the issue ie to be made between
the sheep and the men, if it be ques-
tion whether we shall have fewer sheep
and cheaper clothing, or dearer clothing
and more sheep, confess that should
favor that policy which would result in
human comfort. This, however, is not
the issue as understand it. The pol
icy advocated by the Democracy would
result in the appreciation of wool. No
policy could make wool growing more
improbable than it is under prevailing
conditions.
Before leaving this subject desire to
call the attention Of my learned oppo-
nent to certain British tariff legislation
from which the idea of duty upon wool
originated. Our attempts in that direc-
ton are poor copies of ancient and ab-
surd methods. In 1878 an act was
passed in England for the encourage
ment of wooden manufacturers and by
this measure it was provided that every
corpse should be buried in wooden
shroud. And this was enforced by penal
provision. That sort of tax was about
equal to that provided in the Mckinley
bill with reference to tombstones.
THE TARIFF ON LUMBER.
| Another tax which appears to me ut
terly unjustifable is the tariff upon
lumber. 1t is said that it is to our ad-
vantage to enable our lumber dealers,
none of whom, as far as know, are
particularly impecunious, to market
| their timber without danger OF competi-