The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-15
Who pays the Duty-the Producer or the
Consumer!

prices OF IRON In tnlS country, uHueT the uuitl-
ent systems of what is called free trade, par
tial protection, and complete protection, with
view TO show what answer they give TO the
question at the head of these remarks. To-day
we propose to show that the history of the trade
in coal and in cotton leads to the same result.
Awaiting ourselves of the assistance of friend
who has embodied the statistics for us, we de
sign to extend the inquiry to the several great
staples of production. We have endeavored
to pave the way for the consideration of this
question by citing the testimony of men who
certainly had very different purposes in view
some of them known to be adverse TO the pro
tective policy, to the law-that the expense OF
getting agricultural products to their market
falls upon and is paid by the producer, who has
to bear the cost of transportation, and as a part
of it, any duties levied at the toll gates on the
way.
The only difference between the raw mate
rial-the first rude product of the Southland the
same material transformed and combined with
others in the shape Of manufactured fabrics, is.
that in the former there is universal compet-
ton. When we subject foreign manufactures
to competition, the law applies in all its force;
and the producer must get to market at his own
COST paying all the tolls and duties out of his
own pocket. When it is not So whenever the
consumer has to gro away from home for the ar
tlcles he desires to purchase, he pays his own
expenses, the cost of transporting the raw ma
teral which he brings to exchange, and that of
a. l.
tains in payment, as well as the duties levied
upon them Whether we are right or wrong
in these views let the facts answer.
A quarter of century since we mined
scarcely any coal, and the price of foreign coal
was then eight or ten dollars per ton In 1912,
we mined little more than million of tons. In
lS47, the quantity had reached three millions
of tons, and the selling price was less than half
what it formerly had been, and yet the guam
tty imported was five times as great 1t is
thence obvious that the foreign consumer had
reduced his price to conform to the American
one.
lnlS42, the duty was twenty per cent, being
perhaps seventy cents per ton, and VIC then
imported al 900 tons. In 1916, the duty was
ST 60, and we then imported 10000 tons.
The selling price having remained nearly the
same, it is clear that the foreign producer car
red back with him just SO much less per ton
as the duty had been increased-that is, that he
had paid the additional duty.
The quantity of coal in the general market
of the world has been largely increased by aid
of protection, and hence it is that prices
have fallen Let us now suppose the tariff
totally repealed, and protection abolished, and
see what would be the efiect2 1t is clear that
the foreign producer was willing in 1916 to
sell at our market prices, and pay the duty him
self. The abolition of the duty would enable
him, if he continued TO sell al the same prices,
to put into his pocket an additional 81 60 per
ton; and if he reduced his price eighty cents, he
would still receive eighty cents per ton more
than he did before. Such reduction would
close half the coal mines of the country, and
the closing of furnaces and cotton-mills would
close the remainder. For little time compe
tition would be maintained, but as the foreign
supply would steadily increase, and the domes
tic demand as steadily decrease, the inevitable
effect would be to ruin every man and every
company now engaged in producing coal for
market.
At what price could we then purchase from
abroad three millions of coal, the quantity
brought to market in 1916? Could we have it
at S4-or s5-or even S62 We could not.
Admitting, however, that we could have
that quantity as cheaply as we now have it,
let us inquire at what price we could have the
five millions we should need this year, had not
the tariff of 1916 closed our furnaces and our
mills The transport of that quantity would
require about | 100000 tons of shipping, and
freights would be high. The British coal
owners, having the monopoly of the market,
would fix the price, and that would be high;
and the result would be, that TO obtain five mil
lions of coal would require from thirty to forty
millions Of dollars under a system of perfect
Gree trade" whereas, under system Of per
feet protection, the same quantity could be sup
piled for less than twenty millions. Who is 1t,
then, that now pays the dutyl When we see
that the abolition Of protection would put up
foreign prices TO an extent fully equal to the
duty, is il not obvious that the duty is now
paid by the foreign producer, and constitutes
part Of his cost Of production2 To us it GER
tainly seems that such is the case.
In lS4l-'2. we consumed little more than
100000 bales Of cotton. Five years after, we
consumed 100000 bales. The supply of cot
ton cloth in the general market Of the world
had largely increased under protection, and the
consequence was great reduction of price, as
we shall now show by aid of the tables ap
pended to the last treasury report.
Merrimack No. 10 York Drill. Chico. Bartlett
blue prints checks. colored ings. pee long
cotons. sheet cloths.
ngs.
1sil..13, 49, II 81 500 IL
lsi2.12 49, - $. los 10y