Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1894-01-31
DUTY ON TIN-PLATE.

In the discussion of the duty on tin
plate in the House of Representatives
last Friday, the question being an
amendment reducing the duty on tin
plate from the 2.2 per pound under the
Mckinley bill to cent. in replying to
Mr.. Dalzell of Pa, made the following
remarks showing how the Mckinley
duty taxed those engaged in the can
ming business, as illustrated in Bote-
tourt county -
Mr. Chairman, do not rise to dis
cuss this amendment, but rather to
make a statement bearing on its pro
visions. heartily approve the amend
uent reducing the duty on tin plate to
cent per pound. The honorable gen
tIeman from Pennsylvania Mr.. Dial
zell has said, as understood, that at
the time of the passage of the McKin-
ley act there was not a pound of tin
plate made in the United States, but
that since its passage number of tin
plate industries have sprung up in the
United States, and that the country is
to be congratulated upon the addition
Of those industries to the national
wealth. | want to tell the gentleman
from Pennsylvania where these indus
tries received some of the capital which
has enabled them to progress.
| represent one county in the State
of Virginia, the county of Botetourt.
where the people are largely engaged
in the canning industry, and | took
the trouble to go through that county
and ascertain what tin.plate cost the
Of rf hn
before the Mckinley act went toto eff
feet and the year afterwards, and
found that in that one county for that
year the additional cost by reason of
this tax on tin-plate was over $4,000.
A sum of money, under the form of
law, extracted from the pockets of
those people and put into the pockets
Of the manufacturers of tin-plate on
the plea that they could not live unless
supported by somebody else. There
are large canning industries in differ
ent parts of the State of Virginia which
paid this additional taxation on an arti-
Gle going into the consumption of the
people of the country in order that a
few persons for whom the gentleman
from Pennsylvania speaks may raise
up great industries by taxing the whole
people of the country for them.
The gentleman says that the price of
tin-plate has gone down. Truly the
price has gone down from what it was
in 1890. The question is not whether
the price has gone down below what it
was in 1890, but whether the price has
gone down to where it ought to go,
and where it can go by the adoption of
this amendment.
The gentleman says that the prices
of tin-plate are a great deal cheaper,
and that he has been to the trouble of
going through the stores and finding
that all articles of tin are much cheap
er than they were before the adoption
of the duty of 2.2 cents in the McKin
ley bill. Then | ask the gentleman
who represents the tin plate industry,
of what advantage is his protection =?
This is but the old protection argu-
ment. And if cheapened under the
duty, how can the manufacturers af-
ford to pay higher wages by reason of
the duty?
But the gentleman represents, in his
position on this floor, not the consum-
er; he is not speaking for the consum
or, but for the mOnopOlists, who want
TO wiring from the whole body of the
people of the country by taxation
money TO sustain Two or tnere great
industries, who expect everybody to
contribute to that end. / am opposed
to such policy; and | enter my protest
against the Mckinley duty of 90 cents,
and hope the amendment of the gen
tleman from Ohio fixing cent will be
adopted in the interest of the great
mass of the people as against Il favored
few.
Mr.. Breckenridge of KY, then offer
ed an amendment, the effect of which
would be to place in plate on the free
list.