Mexico weekly ledger., 1882-09-07
THE TARIFF. NO. V.
WRITTEN FOR THE LEDGER.

In our last article on the tariff it
was shown that the consumers Of the
United States were annually robbed
by tariff laws of the stupenduous sum
of $50, 600, 900. Let us inquire and
see what becomes of this money.
When the duty on any foreign article
which is manufactured here is so great
as to prevent an importation of such
article then the extra 40 per cent.
paid by the consumer for the article
manufactured at home goes into the
pocket of the manufactur here, and
not n cent of it ever goes into the
public Golfers. When the duty is low
enough so that the foreign manufact-
urer can import his goods, the extra
40 percent. paid ON the foreign article
by the consumer goes into the U. S.
Treasury. In 1878 the duties on for
eign goods paid to the government
amounted to $50, 600, 900. So that
much of the $50, 900, 900 is satisfac-
torily accounted for. But what be-
comes of the remaining $40, 900, 900?
Who are the lucky mes to whom this
mighty sum, drained annually from
the agriculturist of the country, goes
to enrich? Now, one of the tenets of
protection is that, on account of the
increased cost of protection here that
without protection laws to prevent
the free importation of foreign manu-
featured goods and thus prevent COM
petition between foreign and home
manufactures, no such thing as man.
ufactories can exist on this side of the
Atlantic. If that doctrine be true
then, this $40, 900 900 is being alb
solutely wasted, squandered, and
spent as uselessly as it would be for
a king to hire an army of men to dig
holes and then turn and fill them up.
If it be true it to that extent impov-
erishes the consumer and only serves
to fill up the gap and make good the
losses occasioned by the misapplica-
ton of capital and labor Of the east
ern states to the wrong kind of labor.
If that h true, nothing whatever is
got by anybody in return for those
$40, 00O, 900; the sum is simply
thrown away or sacrificed to make up
for a want of skill, or of capital, or
whichever it may be, by eason of
which the eastern manufacturer makes
no more profit Oh the article which he
sells at 81 40, than the foreign who
sells it at 81 90. But, if the home
manufacturer can manufacture the
article as cheap as the foreign manu-
facturer then he is benefited and en-
riched; he is sure of 40 per cent.
profit on his capital engaged in man.
u%facturing. And the farmer, the
merchant, the latorer in all depart
ments, has the consolation of knowing
that they annually contribute S44O,-
900 900 to form large accumulations
of wealth in the pockets of their fel-
low citizens engaged in manufacture
ing enterprises. This canon of pro-
lection that manufactures cannot ex-
list in America without being fostered
by law costs the consumers of this
country each year the sum Of $780,
OOO, 900, and transfers this %stupendu-
Gus sum, which comes principally
from the farmers, into the hands of
a few men on the Atlantic coast; for
experience in this country has proven
the canon false as decidedly as COM
mon sense has ever contradicted it.
Suppose however that it is true that
without protection legislationthe man
rfacturing industries of the country
would impoverish and die, must the
consumers continue to contribute to
the mere handful of manufacturers
compared with the.whole of our pop
u~lation, simply because it is given to
a sort of a neighbor instead of a Brit
isher or a German? Must the farm
ers of the west continue to annually
contribute a large per cent. of their
earnings to these eastern monopolies
simply for the satisfaction of keeping
out foreign productions? Such laws
trample under foot the golden rule for
successful trading, viz: 'Buy in the
cheapest and sell in the dearest mar
ket," and set up instead for the farm
ers of America that they must sell in
the cheapest and buy in the dearest
market.
To show that most of this tribute
laid upon the consumers of this coun-
try goes to the manufacturer instead
of the government the following fig
ures taken from the Bureau of Stats
tics for 1880 are introduced: Duty
on hoop-iron in 1880 was $31.66 per
ton. The price of the domestic arti-
Gle was S14.61 more than the price of
the foreign article including cost of
transportation, which was an increase
equal to half the duty. The treasury
received $500, $50 and the manufact-
urers 81, Ala 1916, Or S2.s2, where the
treasury received 81. The average
duty was s22.66 per ton; the value
and price of the home product was
$40 in excess of the cost of the OF
imported article, including cost OF
Importation, an increase equal to but
1-3 of the duty, and the manufacturer
received 81, 9O7, 761 bounty the gov
ernment, s1,641, 453 in duty-$3 to
49, D l.