New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1874-02-19
of the Bureau of Statistics connected with
the Treausry Department here:

Average. sic 81 o sI7 IS 5 so 6o.s sls -.
The reduction of duty to $3.50 a ton went
into operation August / 1872, but no falling
of invoice price took place. On the contrary
during the first month under that duty, the
foreign price advanced suddenly by an aver
age OF s2.4S.S per ton, and continued to rise
rapidly for eight months more, eliminating
in s4O.s9.3, in April, 1873, or sl4.ll.9, gold,
higher than during the last month under the
81 duty. Is this progressive expansion of
prices part of the benefits which the con-
sumner of iron has enjoyed from the reduction
of the duties in 1872? In thirteen months
under the 81 duty, Gl5, GO6.l44 pounds of pig
irOn'were imported into the United States,
at cost of $3.50, 122 in coin at the port of
shipment; yet, in eleven months under the
$3.50 duty, 42l $4,000 pounds were imported
at cost of Sc, 472 ,965. Much more money
was paid for much less quantity-about 46
per cent. less in quantity for nearly l | per
cent. more in value
After the act reducing the tariff to $500
had been in operation eleven months, it is
shown by these figures that the average in
voice price stood slO.G2.2 higher than it did
in July, 1872. Is this evidence of growing
cheapness attributable to the decrease of
duty? Nor does the first month of the fiscal
year 1874 show n different state OF facts.
During July last, we imported 5,5IG, $50
pounds of pig-iron, equal to l,4lSi tons. at
a declared value Of a43G, les, giving an aver
age invoice price of s3S.l9.9 per ton. Here
is an advance of some SOL cents per ton on
the price of the previous month. Thus a
whole year of experience fails to develop an
atom of the cheapness claimed as resulting
from the reduction Of duty.
But there is a more conclusive answer to
the claim that the reduction of duty has
| cheapened the price of iron, and still stronger
proof that it has exactly the contrary effect.
For the five years and-a half ending Deem.
Der 81, 1870, the duty on pig-iron was 50 per
ton. This embraces the whole period Of the
existence of the duty with the exception of
two months. During these five and-a-half
years we imported 5j3 OIL, 34j pounds Of pig
iron, at a declared value of all,2SG,l2S,
giving an advance invoice per ton of SIG, ~. s.
Then free trade c.amor succeeded in forcing
a reduction of the duty to 81, On the plea
that consumers would get cheaper iron. Now
mark the result! The lowered duty was in
operation for the nineteen months ending
Jaly 81, 1872. We imported, within those
months, SAC, 77G, 1874 pounds of pig iron, at a
declared value of 1854 sol, giving all aver
age invoice price per ton Of $50, 23.4, or an
average of 1896 more per ton under the
lower duty. SO far from American consum-
ers making considerable gain through the
introduction office trade policy into our tariff,
they suffered considerable loss. The event
shows the falsity of the principal argument
urged in favor of reducing the rate, and
vndicatcs the correctness of the position
taken by the protectionists.
| Still the free trade enemies OF American
manufactures and labor were not satisfied.
They kept up their clamor for still further
reduction, and, as we said in the beginning,
Congress yielded to it, and reduced it ten per
cent more. For the eleven months ending
tariff act had been in operation, we imported,
under this rate, 42l 80 300 pounds of pig
iron, at declared value of SC, 472 ,0G5, giving
an average invoice price per ton of 33i.30.3.
or an average increase Of Slabs upon the
price under the 81 duty. Here we have an
enhancement in price of 3lS.ll.j above what
it was under the 50 duty-much more than a
doubling of price at the end of thirty months
Of experience under progressive application
| of free trade.
| The Journal Of Commerce refers to the state
ment that, while the proposition to reduce
the duty from 80 to s. was pending before
Congress, and they felt confident it would
become law, British manufacturers met and
resolved to raise the price of iron 50 per
| ton and confirms it by the fact that in April.
1860. we imported at $l5-74.G; in May fol-
lowing, the price had suddenly gone up to
s17.G5.9-an advance of sl.9l.2, succeeded
| in June. by further rise Of sos cents. The
general increase of SO per ton was maintained
for seven months, when the strength of
American competition induced a huctuating
concession. On July %, the bill became a
law, to go into effect January |, 1871; and
during July the invoice price, ON the average,
was SlS.O5.4. TO all intcnts and purposes,
the legislation was for the benefit of foreign
manufacturers, at the expense Of our pro-
ducers and consumers and was in result
equivalent to taking some 81 per ton of inn
ported pig out of the Treasury of the United
States, and making free gift of the sum to
foreigners.
In regard to the effect upon the prices of
bar iron, there might be adduced an equally
strong array of facts. But single compare
son is all that is necessary. During July,
1872, the last month before the reduction of
duty took effect, we imported 1G, 44s 1887
pounds of bar-iron, at declared value CT
s45S, 2S6, giving an average invoice price of
s62, 400 per ton. In July, 1873, after just
twelve months of experience under the de-
creased duty, we imported 1900, 800 pounds,
at a declared value of s34O,522 giving an
average invoice price per ton of sS2.9O.G. and
showing an advance of $2O.49.7 in ono year.
Is this increase of price by nearly 33 per
cent, under reduced duty, any evidence of
cheapness growing out of year-before-las
tinkering with the tariff?
These facts we commend to our law
makers, with the respectful Recommendation
that, instead of trying to discover whether
we can't save few hundred dollars by dis
missing here and there a clerk, they add
many millions to the revenue, and greatly
aid our industry at the same time nv restOr.