The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1893-12-20


At the request of Mr. Bynum we pub
lish the following:
To the Editor-Sir: In your issue OF
Friday 1 note that you express the hope
that the report that / had been instru-
n entail i'm securing an Increase OF the
duty on tin plate was not true. If you
had made even cursory examination
you would have discovered that the
specific rate Of 1-5 cents per pound was
as near the ad valorem rate of 40 per
centum as could be fixed. The change
from an ad valorem TO a specific was
made at the solicitation of the importers
and not the manufacturers. I am at a.
loss, however, to understand your Oppo-
sition to "A tax on tin plate. while adj
vocating a restoration of the duty on
sugar. Tin plates are neas,y all inn
ported and at the present rate yield
revenue of about nine million dollars an
nually. Why should this sum be sacri-
feed and a tax put upon sugar TO make
up for the loss? In the Mills bill tin
plates We're put upon the free list be-
cause we had a large surplus and not
pound was being made in this country.
The situation is now changed: there is
deficiency in the revenues and we are
manufacturing. Respectfully.
w. d. BYNUM.
Washington. D. c., Dec. IL.
The dispatch on which we commented.
expressing the hope that it was not
true. contained the following in regard
to the tin plate duty:
The committee first voted today to
make the duty l cent per pound, but
Mr. Bynum secured a reconsideration
and had the duty fixed at f-5 cents
The change from ad valorem to specific
duty was made at the instance of the
importers. who say they could not, under
an ad valOrem duty, make contracts far
in advance for importations or arrange
for future deliveries, as the price could
not be definitely fixed. The change in
creases the duty from the amount first
agreed upon in the bill just little. pos
slbly an eighth of a cent.
Doubtless it was a favor to the i'm
porters to change from an ad valorem
to a specific duty. but they could hardly
have considered it favor to advance
the specific rate after it had been once
fixed. According to this dispatch Mr.
duty, and the specific duty obtained by
him is 4 of a cent in advance Of the 40
per cent. ad valorem duty originally
fixed. We expressed the hope that these
statements We're not true, but. we un-
derstand Mr. Bynum, he denies only that
the specific rate of lis cents is an adj
vance over the original ad valorem rate.
That would of course depend on the rul-
ing price Of tin plate
As to the general question suggested
by Mr.. Bynum concerning sugar and tin
plate. we do not know why he should
be at any loss to understand our posi-
ton. On May 10, 1890, Mr.. Bynum. in
the course of a very able speech in the
house Of representatives,. said:
The duty on tin plate is increased by
this bill from ! TO % cents per pound.
At the present rate the aggregate
amount of duty on tin plate is S7.279. 459.
The increase will add about 600
more, making the duty $l6.000.0O0 or
more. No tin plates are produced in
this country: all We consume are inn
ported. Then, why such an increase?
Why not give TO the poorer people
cheaper tinware? Why not put this
article on the free list and enable our
canning establishments 10 sell their prod
ucts at lower prices and TO enlarge their
business by expectations? BY so doing
they would employ more hands and pay
higher wages.
We thought this was very sensible at
the time. and we also found pleasure in
the following statement of Mr.. Bynum
in the house of representatives on May
20. $780,
Mr.. Chairman. I am opposed to a
bounty on sugar or bounty on any
other article because I believe that IN
der the constitution no power exists to
pay a bounty to any industry / am in
favor Of a reduction of the duties upon
sugar to a revenue basis. The reason 1
am opposed to placing sugar on the free
list is that 1t is a revenue article. We
received some 100000 OF duty on
sugar last year, and 1 am opposed to
removing this tax, which goes into the
treasury Of the United States, in order
that the wool growers Of Ohio, the tin
plate manufacturers Of Pennsylvania, the
lime manufacturers of Maine and the
lumber manufacturers of New England
shall put this amount Of money into
their pockets.
OF course, these two speeches were a
week apart, but having held these views
within space of seven days, we should
think Mr.. Bynum might be able to I'M
derstand how we can hold them at one
eral other reasons why we object to the
tin plate duty in addition to those men
toned by Mr.. Bynum. The first is that
it is in fact humbug and a false pre-
tense, used as a cover for the manu-
facture Of terne plates and for a granite
ware which manufacturers desired to
force on the market in place of tinware
The so-caled tin plates made in this
country are almost wholly roofing tin
or terne plates. and cannot be used for
canning purposes. The second is that
the tin plate tariff has been shown by ex-
perience to be a serious tax on the can
ming industry, which is much more i'm
portant in this country than the tin
plate business can ever be This has
been amply shown by the numerous
protests sent to congress by Gamers and
packers associations, and local industries
of this character have several times
complained Of the injury in the columns
of The Sentinel. We think that Mr..
Bynum's argument on sugar is as good
now as it was in 1890, when the repub-
licans repealed the duty on sugar for
the express purpose Of getting rid of the
revenue-in fact, better, for we need the
revenue now.