The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1910-10-20
The Retision Downward.

ward. He places great emphasis upor
this insertion in his campaign
speeches. Then he lays equal stres.
upon the assertion that the new tariff
law has been responsible for the higf
teost Of living. Let US see about these
things. -
As "a matter of fact, of the 2,O24
titemsSof the Dingley tariff law thai
We're embraced in the Payne law, the
duties on 654 were reduced and those
on 220 were increased.
The articles upon which decreases
were made have a consumption value
of five billion dollars while the artt-
cles upon which increases were made
have consumption value of less than
one billion dollars.
OF the articles upon which duties
were increased. s6Ss,OOO,OOO in con-
sumption value were luxuries, leaving
about $24O,oOO,oOO only of increases
on necessities or just about twenty
times as much decrease as increase.
Among the articles OF common ev-
cry day use, on which the duty was
reduced by the new, tariff, are the fol-
lowing: Hides. ground wood pulp,
cotton seed and croton oil, petroleum
a1d products thereof, placed on the
free list; fresh meat, pork, and lard,
% per cent; bacon and ham 90 per
cent, cabbage SO 1-3 per cent, salt 10
per cent, soft coal SO per cent, sawed
boards from 81 1-2 to so per cent,
dressed lumber 80 per cent, boots
and shoes go per cent, harness and
saddles So per cent, agricultural i'm
plements 25 per cent, window glass
(common) 4 to 20 per cent, iron ore
co per cent, pig iron 81 10 per cent,
bar iron 25 to so per cent, plate iron
or steel 16 2-3 to 40 per cent, steel
rails 80 per cent, beams and Orders
90 to 40 per cent, barbed wire 81
per cent, tin plates 20 per cent, boil
ers Is per cent, knives and forks
Commonly used) 10 to 26 per cent,
sewing machines SO 1-3 per cent, cot
ton thread 16 to 20 per cent, nails,
spikes, and lacks 90 to so per cent,
saws 16 to 25 per cent, gloves (com-
monty used) % per cent, sodas 10 to
SO per cent, gun powder SO 1-S to so
per cent, manufacturers of leather
10 to IS per cent. The tariff was I'M
changed on -four, beans. potatoes,
eggs, dairy products, tobacco and
manufactures thereof, cotton goods
(common), stockings (common), wool
ems, Except in unimportant details.)
In the course OF his arguments, Mr..
rayis cites the duty on coal as an ex-
ample of the working OF the new tar
If in relation to products of West
Virginia Industries. Under the Ding
ley law there was duty of 81 cents 8
ton on bituminous coal. Under the
rayne law the duty is as cents. That
i3 not a revision upward.
Mr.. Davis also cites tin plate as an
ether example. Under the Dingley
law the tariff on tin plate was Is
cents pound. Under the present
law it is 10 cents a pound. That is
not revision upward.
The duty on window glass alsE
ceems to give Mr. Davis some concern
lut the new tariff law reduced the
duties on that product from four to
90 per cent, where there were any
changes made in them.
The duties on the raw materials of
steel were also greatly reduced by
the new law
So much for revision downward
Now, in view of the facts to which
Mr.. Davis has called attention, let us
see where the higher cost of living
comes in.
Mr.. Davis alleges that the wages
paid by the West Virginia industries
and the market prices of their prod
ucts have not been affected by the
change of the tariff. Right there is
where he falls into his own trap. If
change Of the tariff downward as
shown by NJ Davis has no affect
npon wages and market prices why
in the name OF common sense does he
want to break into Congress for the
purpose of revising the tariff still
further downward? Mr.. Davis rea-
sons that change of the tariff up
ward raises prices and wages and
that change of the tariff downward
has no effect whatever upon prices
and wages. Here his argument de-
parts from reason and resolves itself
into mere clap-trap. Ii the tariff has
anything to do with wages and prices
It would affect them ~ change
downward Just as much as it would
by a revision upward.
Tbe mt an Co,I