Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1843-05-13
TERMS OF THE PALLADIUM:
Two DoIiars-.in advance; and Three Dollars
mt the expiration Of the year.
The other side,
s.FACrs FOR THE PEOPLE,n
In relation 10 .sProtecttre Tariff" by 'Idiansan
The other side,
Does he Consumer pay the Duty!

Unqucstionabty, says the writer OF the pam
phls,; let us SEQ. IF this were why should CIR
British eompiaia Of ,asiai IL our citizens
pay the duty, Of whaa importance TO her Is II how
much they pay that her merchandise IS not
prohibitedf II tho consumer pay The duty, o.
what importance is il to US how high the rates
arc in Great Britain, SO that our produce is not
excluded, Is such tho understanding Of the two
nationsf II so, would not each look on with per-
feet indifference while the leyying high
duties on her own subjects, g. the other burden'bg
her citizens with high taxes? On the contrary,
is il not the universal understanding Of all civiI-
wed ma tons that the restrictions and duties I'M
posed by their tariff laws on foreign imposis ope-
rate in a very great degree against the producer
Of the foreign articles, and not against their own
citizens subjects1 The position tina, tue con,
sumner pays the whole duty or tax, as a general
principle, reverses the whole order of merce
and strikes at tho viials Of all mposts; but il is
not truo applied 10 any other than imports Of
articles that neither como into competition with
domestic articles, nor with articles admitted at
less rate OF duty from abroad; as the article OF
coffee, which is duty free when imported in
Americsn bottoms; and even that is doubted, rs
there never has been any identity between the
price Of coffee and the duty; bu, suppose we
should send coffee Rio or Java, and there should
be duty levied upon it, where it would come In
20 competition with the domestic article, would
In consumer pay the duty, would the produce
CT pay it before he could bring his article in to
ket in competition with the Java or Rio coffee' u
ius,rate tho idea further, by taking anaricle from
abe British tariff which will be found under the free
trade head Q! This side of facts '1-ss fse. tho Brit
ash coooai pay in great Britain three
four,hs Of n cent per pound duty, while U. States
hams paw two aud three fourths cents per pound
duty. These hams como into competition IN the
Liverpool or Manchester market. Would the Brit
jsh consumer pay two cents per pound more tor the
American ham Of the same quality than he would
tor the other, merely to sustain the theory that
the consumer pays the duty. or would the Ameri-
can produc er pay into the British exchequer the
,lu,y himself before he could sell his ham and
the consumer eat il at the price he would have
10 pay for the colonial ham, paying two cents per !
pound less duiyf So thinks JOAN Bull, and so II
would seem The same idea may be illustrated
by grievance complained OF by the Indiana
boatmen, through legislative resolve at the last
session, that their boats were taxed wharfage,and
they had TO pay license to sell 'he'r produce al
tho towns the Mississippi. This was TO De
sure a tax, bu, lending modern democrats OF the
free trade school would say that the boatnan mao
no ground to complain as the whole loss Tell al
last on the consumer Of the produce, and the
boa, in fact paid nothing. We ask those engaged
on tho river it they believe this doctr'nef Two
vessels land at Liverpool at the same time, one is
loaded with Hindosian, and the other with Caro-
lima cotton; the India cotton pays only eight CTS.
~ M ol,nac nav q
ne,y two cent, by the British tariff: the cotton
is Of the quality TO be sold IN the same mar
ket who pays the sixty four cents per cwt. the
difference Of duty, the British consumer or the
American producere Would the British manu-
facturer give sixiy four cents per ewt. more Tor
the American article. SO as to pay the duty, than
no could buy the India article forf No, says
,Se leading modern democrat, but tho India arti-
clio would sell for the increased price OF the duty
paid on the American article. Ii this DO true,
then the dusy Of seveuty-two cents might just as
we'll have been levied in indscriminateiy on both
articles, so far as the British consumer was con-
cerned. Such is The f.ilacy Of this doctrine.
Doe. the Duty raise the Price'
Certainly it does. says the leading modern de-
mocrat, precisely to the extent OF the duty I'M
posed. IL uwere not so, why do the ,nanufactu-
rers demand high dutiesi This question is alto
gether satisfactory TO the person who puts il, and
is deemed by him entirely conclusive Of the mat.
ser, when in truth it is just as great falIacy
tho other, as all our experience has fully demon
s,ra,ed; even a, this very day under the high ia
riff Of last year. goods were never lower, as eve.
~ ono knows. II the position Of this FREQ trade
school was true, the price Of goods would imme
dia,eiy have risen upon the passage Of the tariff
Of 1912; then how 90 you account for the desire
OF the manufacturers to have duties highs We
answer, that they may be protected in q fair Do