Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1888-08-09

mere discussion of the question would
| disturb the business interests of the
country" as they have since become
BY 1924 the average rate of duty had
increased to S5 per cent In 1928 the
tariff denominations was enacted.
under which the average rate was A
per cent. The country, however, re-
VOTED against this excessive taxation.
| and in 1888 scheme of reduction
was adopted by which It was pro-
vided that the rates should be lowered
every other year until 1S41 by one
tenth of the excess over 20 per cent
In 1912 the protectiOnists. taking adj
vantage of the panic of 1887, again adj
vanced rates, but in 1916 and 1857 the
duties were again lowered until they
were reduced to 20i per cent A new
era of protection was begun in 1852.
when the Morrill, tariff was adopted
for the purpose of raising revenue to
meet the expenses of the war. So long
as the war continued and for several
years after its close there was no OBJ
| lection made to the levying of high
taxes on imports. In 1861 the average
rate of duty was 10 per cent, in 1862 it
was 38 per cent, in 1865 it was "a per
| cent, in 1870 it was 40 per cent. 1t
was at this time that the manufacture
ers, seeing that the tariff tax had been
increased to a point where it was bur-
den to the country, agreed through
General Banks, then member of Con-
gress to a reduction of from % to %
per cent. A slight reduction was
made, but in 1873 the rate was 80 per
cent, and it has steadily increased. In
1882 the protectiOnists again admitted
that the tax was excessive and con-
sented to reduction of 20 per cent.
Upon this the task OF revision was in
trusted to them. If it had not been for
their promise to lower rates of duty
there would not have been a commits
sion, for the law authorizing it was en-
acted by the aid of Democratic votes.
The law which was the result of the
labors of the commission did not re-
duce rates at all. It went into effect
in 1888. In 1882 the average rate was
40. 81 per cent. in 1887 it was 47.10.
1t was in 1882 that the protection
lists abandoned their theory that pro-
lection was incidental to the raising of
revenue by customs duties. Senator
Frye and Mr.. Mckinley announced
that protection was the main object,
and that the raising of revenue should
be incidental. Senator Frye said: Il
am a protectionist from principle. II
there was no public debt, no interest to
pay, no pension list, no army and no
navy to support, l still should oppose
free trade and it's twin sister. tariff for
revenue only, and favor protective
duties"
The question is now, not whether
there shall be tariff for revenue only, |
but whether there shall be any reduc-
ton of duties The Mills bill would |
put the average rate back to what it |
was before the commission of protec- |
tionists increased it under the pretense |
of reducing it, or about 40 per cent, a |
reduction of per cent. The rate is |
now very nearly what it was in 1870, !
when the manufacturers admitted that |
rates should be reduced from % to 25 |
per cent. It is almost 20 per cent. |
more than the rate of 1882, when the !
commission bill was passed.
Another delusion is that wages will |
come down with reduction of rates. |
1t has already been shown that the |
proposed reduction is not nearly so |
great as the manufacturers have con- |
fessed that their industries can stand. |
Moreover, the wages paid by the man
ufacturers are not regulated by the |
tariff The capitalist does not pay
higher wages because his goods bring |
higher prices. His wages are deter |
mined by thelaw of supply and demand.
Naturally he pays for efficiency, and |
labor in this country is much more ef-
ficient than it is in Europe. American |
machinery also is famous for its supe-
riority, and we can no more judge of |
the relative cost of labor in the United |
States and England by comparing daily |
rates and weekly earnings than we |
can measure the comparative happi- |
ness of individuals by their incomes. |
When We are told the amount of the |
receipts of an American and an En- |
glishman we have only one term of the |
equation. Daily wages do not even in |
dictate the relative unit of wages for |
unit of time. The average daily pay |
of an American cotton weaver, for |
example, is about So cents, while |
an English weaver will receive |
only 65 cents; but the American |
works 10 hours a day and the English F,
men 9 hours, so that the American re-
ceives only about l cent an hour more
than the Englishman. The real ques-
ton, however, goes to the cost of la
Dor. The manufacturers say that they
must have protection in order to pay
high rates of wages and to cover the
difference between the cost of labor
here and in Europe. But the cost of
labor is less here than it is in Europe,
especially in all manufactures that de-
mand high degree of skill. In