The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1886-12-02
Protection-Who Pays For It?

The enquiry arises who are the pro-
tected classes? The answer is simple.
They are the manufacturers of the cOun-
try, those engaged in manufacturing
industries. Now who is it pays the
tariff, this high protective tariff, laid
upon the industries during war times !?
The manufacturer says, don't we pay
our proportion with the rest Of the PEG
pie !? =" shoemaker pays his twenty
five pl 1t. to the tailor, and the
tailor p. his twenty-five per cent. to
the shoemaker and out of the in
creased prices we are all able to pay the
farmer more, and so it goes; every
body gets higher profits and it is a good
thing all around. Let us see how this
works out practically.
We will simplify it if we can, so that
all may understand. Suppose we had
a community here at Hanover, consist
ing of a shoemaker, a tailor and a
farmer. Take, for instance, our
friends, William Klecan, who is man.
ufacturer Of boots and shoes, Mike
Hammacker, who is engaged in the
tailoring industry and Andy Oswald in
farming. These gentlemen are select
ed for the purpose of illustrating the
practical workings of protective tariff.
Now, Mr.. Oswald. the farmer, hoes
his own row, asking odds of nobody,
but Mr.. Klecan and Mr.. Hammacker,
the shoemaker and tailor, demand a
bonus of $4,000 a year each, to foster
their industries. Now, how under the
protection system do they manage to
= hn 70 hor n
steal to levy tax on Mr.. Oswald, the
farmer, alone. Mr.. Klecan and Mr..
HammackRr will not do that. But to
avoid any appearance Of unjust discrim-
ination, they will put on tariff, which
is simply tax, on all consumers of boots
and shoes and clothing. This at first
sight, looks fair, but mark the singular
result. Mr.. Klecan, the shoemaker,
pays $4,000 a year to foster the tailor
ing industry, and Mr.. Hammacker, the
tailor, pays $4,000 year to foster the
boot and shoe industry. These two
transactions balance each other, and SO
far honors are easy. Neither the shoe
maker nor the tailor are out of
pocket copper. But how is it with
our friend Oswald, the farmer He
pays $4,000 year to foster the boot and
shoe industry, and $4,000 a year to fos-
ter the tailoring induStry-total 500.
And what does he receive Absolute
ly nothing. His farming industry is
not fOstered-there it is in nutshell.
The protection tax is laid on all alike,
but when the books are balanced the
shoemaker and the tailor are IN $50 each
and the farmer is ont 500
We have alluded already to the plea
that the protected classes bear their
share of the burdens. Why, indeed,
load which is laid on the country alto
gether for their benefit? They put up
on the cOuntry's back an enormous
burden and then generously offer to
bear their share. How much is their |
share Agriculture pays not less than |
As per cent, other unprotected indus |
tries about 80 per cent while protect |
ed industries pay only % per cent. |
Thus it will be seen that the farmer |
carries the bulk Of the load. For every
dollar paid in by the manufacturers,
the farmers pay about $500, and then |
the manufacturers take the pool. This |
is the protective system.
The question may be asked, if you do |
away with the protective system, how |
will you raise revenue? How will |
the necessities of the government be |
met? The simplest answer is, that a |
revenue tariff and protective tariff are |
utterly different things. A tax system |
which takes $500, 200, 900 annually from |
the people, in order to give $3.50, 600 |
to the government and S750,000,0 to |
the privileged classes, is not a system |
suited to Democratic Republic. A |
tariff for revenue would put duties Oh |
such articles, and to such amounts that |
the highest returns would be obtained |
with the least burden to the people. A |
revenue tariff would avoid, as far as
possible, any restriction ON the develop |
ment on the cOunty's wealth. Barries
to commerce would be Stunned, the
taxation of raw material eSchewed, as
the most destructive of revenue mis-
takes. \ tariff constructed for revenue
only, would be very different thing
from the patchwork of folly and abuse
which has fastened itself upon the in
dustry of the country. The Demo-
cratic party, as enunciated in its plat
forms, both state and national, is in
favor Of this kind of tariff. A tariff
to run the government economically ad-
and no more, and to be laid
upon superfluities instead of necessities.