The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1909-11-04

clOth and pays the higher duty.
But this is not all. By cunningly
devised changes in classification the
rates are raised still higher, so tina
the rates on cotton cloth as compared
with the rates in the old law are rails
ed from per cent on the finer grades
eff cloth to more than 100 per cent on
the poorer grades. What makes us
warm under the collar is that the
greatest advances come on the gar
Iments Of the poor By a trick the
trainers of the bill have raised the
duty on the cheaper cotton goods
from less than so per cent to a hun
dred per cent. And there was no
excuse for the robbery. Already
these cotton mills in New England
were declaring dividends of 60 per
cent. Is there no limit to the greed
of the monopolist?
The makers of cheap stockings,
stockings costing not more than 81
per dozen, used to be protected by a
duty of 81 per cent, which would
seem to be enough to satisfy an ordi-
nary hog, but under the new law the
tariff on these stockings goes up to SS
per cent.
The wooden schedules are worse if
possible than the cotton. Here again
is shown the fine jugglery of the men
who framed this bill in the interest of
eastern manufacturers. The sched-
ules are cunningly devised so as to
favor the worsted wooden trust and
discriminate against the carded WOOL
en- mills which furnish the poor man S
cloth. By system of Legislative leg
erdemain the worsted mills get their
fine woods almost without duty, while
the carded wooden mills have in some
cases to pay as high as 500 per cent
duty on raw material.
The manufactures of shoddy is per-
mitted to count his stuff as if it were
pure wool and carries on his business
behind a tariff wall that amounts to
about 200 per cent. In the manufac-
ture of flax, hemp and iute there are
some reductions on certain yarns,
nets and mattings, but when it comes
to oilcloth and linoleum, the poor
mans carpet, the duties are increas-
ed from so to 100 per cent. And yet
the authors of the bill have the nerve
to put these among the articles on
which the duty has been decreased.
All along the line is the trail of decep-
lion.
Look" says the defender of the
bill, "at the duty on steel rails and
structural iron. Steel rails reduced
rom 1874 to 1892 per ton." Ac-
,ording to the testimony of Andrew
Carnegie there is no need for any
luty on steel rails. They can be
manufactured cheaper in this country
han anywhere else on earth at the
present time. The steel trust is ship
ping rails all Over the world and SELL
ng them for less money than they
will sell the same kind of rails right
here at home. During the year 1907
the whole amount of steel rails i'm
ported amounted to only $107, 900 in
value, while the trust exported more
than 8 million dollars to other coun-
tries and undersold the manufacture
ers in the foreign markets.
The house bill reduced the rate on
iron from $40 to So per
ton. No distinction was made be-
tween structural iron that had been
punched and that which had not.
When it went over to the senate the
Aldrich crowd struck the words,
whether plain or punched, or fitted
for use" and substituted the words,
mot assembled or manufactured or
advanced beyond hammering, rolling
or casting" On structural iron that
was punched ready to be fitted the
duty is raised from $40 per ton, as it
was under the Dingley law, to $1S
per ton. And yet these highbinders
seem to have made the president
actually believe that the duty on
iron has been reduced from
$40 to Sc per ton.
The bill seems at first glance to re-
duce the duty on lumber IA per cent,
but the same deft hand that fixed the