The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-03-10

the articles on which uIey are laid, and so
must be paid by American consumers of those
articles, whatever they may be.
If we were to admit, therefore, that the re-
moval of the duties from woods and woollens
would lower the price by the amount OF the
duties, it would not follow that Americans as
a whole would gain by it; because the same
1924, 900, 600 now laid on and collected from
wools and woollens would have to be laid on
some other article of American consumption,
and presumptively would increase its cost to
that amount If it were laid on farming
lands, it would add to the cost and diminish
the profits of farming, lessen the value of
land and the number who could live by its
tilIage, and so raise the selling price of agri-
cultural products, without beneftting the ag-
riculturist.
But we deny, squarely and knowingly, that
the removal of the duties from woods and
woollens would lessen their cost to the con-
sumer. The cost of most kinds of woods and
woollens which are produced in this country
is now lower than it was in 1860, before the
duties were made protective, and is lower in
all cases than it would be if the home produc-
ton were in any considerable degree dimin-
ished. These two facts have been SO re-
peatedly shown in previous issues of the
Bureau that we need not again quote the
prices. The enhancement of domestic pro-
duction always lowers prices to the con-
sumner.
In another article we publish concise
abstract of the actual results of the tariff on
salt, showing that it has so increased our
production thereby of course diminishing our
cost of prodnction) as to reduce the price
even in New York, and still more at all inte-
rior points, considerably lower than salt sold
under free trade, and yet leave O margin of
profit for salt producers to-day which they
could not have had at the present selling
prices, in 1860. The cost of salt to the con-
sumner being lower under protection than
under free trade, it follows that the duty does
not rest as tax upon him, or that if it does
it is more than Offset by the increased cheap
ness obtained by an enhanced domestic
| production. The importers of salt have
| themselves paid most, if not all,
of the duty on salt out of the price
for which they sell it; and as
this price is not SO high as they sold it for
under free trade, and is regulated mainly by
our'own cost of production it plainly includes
the whole duty, which is thus shown to be
tax on foreign producers Of salt, and not on
its Americrn consumers. Were the demand
of the free traders granted in the matter of
salt, the Government would lose two and
half millions CT its revenue, the importers
| would pocket about that sum as extra profits,
| and after some fluctuations, sufficient to i'm
pair the prosperity and stop the progress of our
domestic salt manufacture, the prices would
| return to about their present figures and per-
| haps rise above them. If salt could be brought
in as free gift for three years, with the effect
to utterly break up and stop its manufacture
here, the rise in price during the following
three years would more than offset the profits
of the three during which we got our salt for
nothing. In other words, the interest of Ame-
rican consumers would not be benefited by
receiving even gratuitously for a brief term
any article of general use for which we must
in the long run be dependent on American
industry. The cost of breaking down and
building up the industry would be charged to
the consumer after the gratuitous supply had
stopped, and would be far more than the ad-
vantage he would gain by getting the supply
temporarily for nothing.
For these reasons a protectionist might
vote for the Illinois resolutions, so far as
their mere language goes, because he would
regard the removal of tax from importers
to put it on farmers, mechanics, railroads, or
manufacturers, as a system of revenue legis-
lation 'for the special advantage of one
branch of business (the foreign and import
ing) ''at the expense of another" (the Ameri-
can and producing He would be abundantly
confirmed in this impression by finding the
importers ready at any time to pay heavily, as
a business measure, to get any such legisla-
ton put through.
Since the result which the resolution con-
demps would certainly follow from the repeal
of the protective duties, the resolution itself
must, to an intelligent mind, be regarded as
condemning free trade as a system of legisla-
ton which would take money out of the
pockets of the mass of the taxpayers of the
country to give it to importers and foreign
manufacturers.
Finally, the resolution declares that "the
best system of protection to industry is that
which imposes the lightest burdens and the
fewest restrictions on the property and busi
ness of the people"
The two postulates here connected to-
gether stand in no invariable relation tc
each other. Protection to industry is not
identical with either heavy taxes or ligh
, taxes. A Tartar or Arab desert may have
, no taxes whatever, as the Ameri
can Indians have none Yet who would say
that the best system of protection to industry
is that afforded by Tartars, Arabs, and Ameri
can savages? The best system of protection
to industry is simply that which protects it a
a every exposed point from being broken dowI
by foreign competition, just as the best sys
tenn of forts and lighthouses is that which
: protects the exposed points, knowing that i
a these are secure the unexposed points will TAX
a care of themselves. The exposed points il
a our industry are those in which foreign pro
ducts compete with ours Three or four o
> our States might be invaded and occupied b.
IS foreign military force without derangin
s industry or stopping production to an exten
v equal to that which would ensue from the de
n struction of our business interests who
/. would be caused by the Inauguration OF FIRE
trade in iron and steel and their manufacture
,f alone. In the former case the whole natio
Al would spring to arms as an act of patrioti
duty, to repel the aggressor. In the latte