OCR Text |
Show ISDITOHIA.LS. IN WHOSE INTEREST WAS IT? Commenting on a certain paragraph in McKinley's speech before the tariff tar-iff league in New York, in which he asserted that the second measure passed pass-ed by the First Congress was a tariff bill prepared by Ha niLTOx.the first secretary sec-retary of the treasury, a writer in the St. Louis Republic, to whom editorial prominence is given, states that the average duty of that bill wa SJ per cent, while the average duty of the McKinley bill is 00 per cent. He makes other comparisons as follows: On manufactured articles generally they put 5 per cent; he puts from 50 to over 100 per cent. On calicoes they put 5 per cent; he puts 50 per cent". On manufactures of cotton they put 5 percent; he puts over 40 per "cent. They mide wool free, manufactures of wool .j per cent; he puts an average tax of over SO per cent on wool and manufactures of wool. On carpets they put 5 per cent; his rates run to 85 per cent. On all readv-made clothing they put 7A per cent; his rates, in some cases, run over 100 per cent. On earthen and stone ware they put 5 percent; he puts sometimes as high as GO per cent. On manufactures of iron and steel they put 5 per cent; he puts from 50 to 100 percent. They make pig-tin free, tin plate 5 per cent"; he puts 4 cents a pound on pig-iron and 80 per cent on tin plate. They put 10 per cent on window-glass; his rates run from 75 to 150 per cent. The man who would now declare himself in favor of such a tariff bill as the founders of the republic enacted would be denounced as a free-trader, "bought with British gold." The truth is that a public man who would re-introduce into Congress some of the bills of that celebrated apostle of protection, Henry Clay, who advocated even a higher high-er tariff than Hamilton, would now be classed as a traitor to the protection principle. It is not in the interest of American manufactures that the McKinley Mc-Kinley bill was passed, but for the benefit of American monopolists. |