Evening journal., 1893-09-11

uOb come 10 uloCubh Dul 10 hppthlt
Those who do not believe that the Nc
Klnley law is either necessary or benef.
cial naturally wished information from
these practical men; but. strange as 1t
may appear to those not acquainted with
the habits Of the protective tariff de-
claimers, they got chiefly evasions, de.
olarations Of ignorance and declamations.
Mr.. Stewart, however. was forced TO
admit that while the Mckinley act had
raised the duty on chenille (Which was
the one thing besides upholstering that
Mr.. Stewart admitted knowledge OF
from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. the
per diem wages had not been increased
but he claimed that the steady work Sc
cured the Mckinley blessing in this par
ticular case.
This tariff advocate was much inclined
to be funny in his answers. The cause
Of the fun was soon shown to be either
his ignorance or disingenuousness. He
said he did not know how the Mckinley
bill had affected the price Of wool but
contended that If the duty were taken off
wool the farmer would insist on having
it taken of the finished product.
Mr.. Stewart could not admit that free
wool with lower duties on the finished
product, would stimulate production and
so improve the condition of the wage
workers, at the same time decreasing
the prices 20 them as consumers. He
thought the duty that a workingman
had TO pay on the wool In his clothes
didn't amount to much, anyhow. He
admitted that there was adulteration in
wooden goods, but thought that there
was as much on the other side, as on this
side. He contended illogically, too, that
cheaper wool and lower wages on the
other side necessitated a cheaper product
and greater consumption. He could not
explain why the same result would not
occur here with cheaper elements.
Mr.. Stewart admitted that the Nc
Kinley law is not maintaining steady
work now nor keeping up wages, but he
apologized, saying that was due to the
threat Of change.
To questions by Representative
Bynum. of Indiana, he admitted that this
country did not now raise the cheaper
carpet wools, which must be imported,
but claimed that they might be pro
duced in this country II they only had
enough protection. He said he knew
.lo,f nor,r,foefov,- 0a-r.T1 "A VU.f.l.s-
reports about prices and wages, but
could not say whether they were cor
rect. Mr.. Stewart frequently replied
that he did not know the answer to
questions and that others of the delega.
tion could answer, but they seemed as
ill-informed as himself
Mr.. Fitzgerald, who followed him to
speak, as a wool sorter, especially about
wool, began by saying that he did not
think the members Of the committee
ought to "hackle" the members Of the
delegation with hard questions. They
were there to appeal and not TO dis
cuss.
In answer to Mr. Bynum, hs said that
he didn't know the price of wool had
fallen the year after the Mckinley bill
passed, but If it did fall he thought it
would have been lower still if the Nc
Kinley bill had not been passed. He did
not know what per cent. Of the cost Of
production was for labor, nor how much
Of the 90 per cent duty on woolens
covered wages.
Thus it was throughout the hearing.
Men, who advocate a tax on other people
to furnish profits for the business they
are in, were ignorant, evasive and
declamatory. They do not know the
details, even, Of their own business, and
still they are ready to advocate and vote
for taxes for the benefit Of thousands OF
other businesses which they know less
about.
It is true they are not expected to
know these things, but how can they
arrive at the'conclusion that it Is just to
impose taxes upon millions Of unwlllin g
people without knowing that those taxes
are just or necessary
They do not see the profit and loss
account Of their employers; they do not
know whether the industry is making OF
losing money. They take the state
ments Of interested men on faith, and
make fools Of themselves when ques-
toned. According TO their own theory
of protection, they do not know whether
their own industry is protected too much
or too little
WAS NOT A STocKHoLDER.