Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1888-09-26
WHO PAYS THE TARIFF TAXES.
An Answer to the Democratic Assertion
that 1t Is the Consumer.
from the Boston Commercial Bul1etinl

From the Boston Commercial Bulletinl
Here is lesson in political economy for our
readers as easy as it is fundamental in it's
nature.
Eree-traders generally, most tariff reforners,
including President Cleveland lin his message)
positively assert that the amount of the tariff
on imports is, to Just that extent, tax on the
American consumer. Some of them assert that
this tax is directly added to the price of the inn
ported article as did President Cleveland but
the more moderate and intelligent fire e-traders
content themselves with the assertion that the
tax is indirectly borne in its fullness and not
directly added to the price OF the imported ar
ticle.
We shall endeavor to shoH that the tariff tax
borne by the consumer, either directly or indi-
rectly, is not the full amount of duty.
1t may be shown plainly enough that the tax
to the full amount of the duty is not directly
borne. For instance, the price of American
steel rails is $50 per ton at the mill The cor
responding cost of the staple in England
is G3 It's Cd, say 1882; add to this I'D
freight, and we have the cost here of 81 43, not
including the SIT duty or only S7.97 less than
the cost of American steel rails, and not SIT
less, which would be the full amount of the
duty
1t cannot be so easily demonstrated that the
full amount of the tariff is not indirectly O tax
on t. g customer, because the figures do not APP
ply; but we think it can be proven satisfactor-
ilv. nevert heless, and in this way
Take as the first pr mise the general adnlis-
sion that our European competitors, and
particularly English manufacturers, are ex-
ceeoingly DESTROYS of a reduction OF our import
duties.
Take as the second premise the assertion 60
common now, that import duties could be re-
duced without causing loss of industry from
American wo kshops 10 foreign soil.
Accor ling to these free-tr lde premises the
conclusion comes that Notwithstanding duties
are 10 be reduced, The Americans will still hold
their trade. But If the English manufacturer
bears none of our impor9 duties himself, either
directly or indirectly, and the Am arican con-
sumner does bear the entire burden of the tax i'll
way or the other, and if the En9lish manu-
facturer really has hope OF cutting into the
trade already established and held by Ameri-
cans what reasonable and sufficient explanation
remains for the adm tied anxiety of the English
manufacturers to see re1ueeI import duties on
this side of the Al Iantic !?
Can any reason be conured up that viii COM
mend itself to practical experience and common
sense as does the obvious reason to the rroCec-
ZIONIST, namely, that this anxiety the part of
the foreign manufactures TO our import
duties lowered, arises from q deeply cherished
natural desire to escape the competitive ruce
part, or sometimes the vyhole of import
duties, which the import er has to bear himself
and secondly, from well-based hope OF greatly
increased American trade, due to the shutting
down of American workshops to greater or
less extent.