But the McKinley act, with its hi*,
duties on raw materials, has had a bad
effect on the business of the concern, and
removal to Milwaukee is now contem
plated. In explanation of his reason for
making such a change Mayor Sargent
says:
“Under the present tariff law’s we
could obtain raw material at much
cheaper rates in the w’est than we can
here. If raw material were admitted
free of duty vessels from all over the
W’orld would be unloading their cargoes
of such material in New York, so that
the iron and coal kings of Pennsylvania
would be obliged to meet the New’ York
prices. Ln that case New York would
be the great center for raw’ material,
and New Haven would be a far better
place for such a plant as ours than any
city in the w’est.
“What is the case at present? On ac
count of the existing tariff the dealers in
raw materials in the west put up prices
as high as the price of foreign raw ma
terial which comes into New York bur
dened by a heavy import tax. The loss
all falls on the manufacturer. We must
pay $6.72 a ton for iron and about $4.10
a ton for lead and so on. In the west
the cost of raw material is cheaper be
cause there is less freight to pay, and in
a year this extra freight amounts to con
siderable.”
Mayor Sargent’s statements carry
their own moral. Let the high protec
tionist draw conclusions from them
favorable to his favorite policy’ if he
can. But what in the light of these
statements, becomes of the Republican
claim that the American consumer does
not pay the tax which the McKinley
act imposes on raw material?
The Starch Duty.
