The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1888-10-03
RESULT OF FREE WOOL.
SOME WELL DIGEsTED INFORMA-
TON FOR VOTERS.
The Home Producer Taxed, the Foreign
Producer Subsidized-The simple Equi-
ties of the Case Clearly and Concisely

ties of the Case Clearly and Concisely
Stated.
David III. Rice, in the Boston Journal
IL appears To ms that too little attention ia
given To the fact that free trade results in the
taxation of American pro luctions, while the
like foreign importations escape paying like
taxes for the support OF our Government Take
wool, for instance, from which the duty IL re-
moved by the Mills bill, which proposes FREQ
trade" In wool. Let US trace bag of American
grown wool from tho tarm in Kansas 20 the sales
room in Boston. What does that bag of wool
represent besides the mere fiber which 10 con-
tains2 III represents in concrete form human
labor for one thing, and taxes which 1T has paid
TO support the Government for another. The
farmer in Kansas who raised that bag of wool
spent years time and labor in growing IL.
During that year the farm from which his sheep
were fed was taxed and the sheep ON
which the wool grew were taxed. When
no sold the wool he was obliged 90 take part of
the money he received for il ana pay those taxes.
Therefore tho wool paid this first tax 10 the
Government. and IL formed part of the cost of
that wool When the farmer sold that wool TO
the dealer in Kansas, the dealer had to pay II
tax TO the Government on his capital employed
in the wool business. Accordingly. the dealer
added part the amount Of this tax TO the
purchase price OF that bag OF wool, and char 3ed
IA his selling price so much more for II. When
ne sold that wool he took part OF the money re-
ceived 70 IL 10 pay that tax. This was the &C.
ond tax that bag of wool paid 70 the Government
The dealer in Kansas, however, had 10 ship that
bag of wool 10 the merchant in Boston, who
bought it OF him. Every line of railroad
over which that wool was transported 10
Boston hal TO pay taxes TO the Government. So
it added part OF that tax to its freight charges
on that bag OF wool and when 10 received its
freight money it took part of it 10 pay that tax:
This was the third tax which that bag of wool
was made 10 pay, and viii n, of course, WAS
added TO it's cost. But the Boston merchant has
20 pay Il tax on bis money invested in tho wool
business, as W II as upon the income derived
from 10. SO he added n part of that tax 10 the
cost Of this bag Of wool TO make up his selling
price TO the mill agent, and when the latter buys
"A nnl a hnn ma N
price he gets and pays that tax. This Ia the
fourth tax which this bag Of wool must pay to
tho Government before it gets into the
mill whore IL is to bs used. Thus we 500
that our bag Of American wool has been made
TO contribute tax after tax TO the support of
home government, AL Of ich has been added
TO its cost price to the consumer These taxes
are levied by the Government TO car. y Ii on, so
that this wool may be raised and bought and
best market in the world-our American home
market The advantages TO our Government
are well wocth the taxes this bag of wool has
been made 10 contribute toward paying, even
when considered III pecuniary way, and with
out these advantages no such valuable market
for the sale OF wool ould exis Unless those
taxes pad, both The Government and its
advantages would cease 10 exist together.
Next take the case of bag Of foreign wool inn
ported in a foreign vessel. When that bag OF
wool is rolled into the Government warehouse,
has it been made 20 contri ute anything toward
this government or the valuable market of this
Government to which it is broaght for sole TO
the consumer?
Manilestly not. II is only W on the duty is
paid on il that it contributes its fair share of
that expense, and IL cnn be made to con-
tribute TO that in no other way This is because
when the Union was fOrmeI tho States delegated
10 the General Government sole power 20 levy
taxes and duties on Imports aud they delegate 1
this power for the express purpose OF havin
such duties levied on this foreign bag of WOOL so
as 70 place 10 on an equality, in the matter OF
contributing to government expense, with the
bag Of american grown wool
Il
declares that this american system OF having
foreign wool contribute 10 the exp nse of the
is vicious, inequltablo and illogical
source OF unneCo 5sary tayatiOn' and the
Democratic party following this so-ealled
free trade' doctrine presents TO the coun-
try It's Mills bill, which removes the tariff from
foreign imported wool so that il shall not be
made TO contribute anything TO the support of
or Government. AZ the same time American
grown wool is TO be left 20 pay taxes rs before.
Could anything be more vicious, inequitable
and illogical than this scheme OF discriminating
against American wool and in favor Of fCroigil
wOol2 Leaving the former 20 belr texat ion,
which Is not imposed upon the latter charging,
the former with taxes necessary TO uphold our
valuable home market for wool and throwing
open that same market to the latter, contribut-
ing nothing
If our Government and its market is valuable
enough TO warrant the impostioh OF taxes
on domestic wool, as the only condition upon
which that wool can be raise1 and sold in that
market, as IL now done, Why is 10 not valuable
enough 10 warrant the imposition OF n tariff upon
foreign wool brought into and sold in the same
narketP
Why should such premium the Ameri-
can producer be offered to the foreigner TO bring
his wool into that market? Why should the
cost OF maintaining this American market. with
all its attractions and advantages I'm price, be
Lowed In advance upon American products, and
these attractions and advantages be transformei
into gold by the foreign importer OF any foreign
product competing with the American without
paying for the privilege?
Nat . TAI ia hiatt ha tro1a
poses in his Mills bill with relation to wool, rs
well as any other articles imported among our