Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1888-03-09

= I
trations to come, and viii preserve the
name of Mr.. JUdeVine in honored and
grateful Remembrance. 1t is noteworthy
example of public spirit and enlightened
1 enerosity, and we wish it might find
many imitators.
Mr.. Edmunds and His Free Trade
Critics-The Export Duty on Coffee
Upon the appearance of Senator Ed
munds's tariff article in Hdrper's Mdgn-
zine, he was called to account by the New
York Times forI an alleged omission of
essential facts from the premises on which
he based his argument. The Times quoted
Mr.. Edmunds's remark that coffee did
not fall in price when the tariff on coffee
was taken off asserted that his argument
was that because the price of coffee did
not fail when coffee was put on the free
| list, therefore nothing else would fall in
! price when admitted rec of duty; and pro
| ceeded to alraign the senator for conceal
ing the fact that as soon AS the American
| duty was taken off from coffee, an export
! duty was laid by Brazil, which sustained
the price. Coffee proves nothing said, in
| substance, this free trade critic, because
of the export duty; Mr.. Edmunds was
/ pitiably ignorant or disingenuOus, or he
would have seen and admitted this there
fore his whole argument fails and it re-
mains true that all customs duties come
out of the pockets Of the consumers.
Replying to this outrageous misstate.
ment of Mr.. Edmunds's language and
logic, this paper showed that Mr. Edmunds
cited coffee simply as one among several
nrnnfs ha l,1tr lon f,f tor
duties does not necessarily and IN all cases
fall on the consumer. but that it is in part
borne by the foreign shipper and we
maintained that the laying of an export
dGty by Brazil after the customs
duty was taken off, did not affect the
senator's argument-since it made no diff
ference to the American consumer wheth-
er the added profit on coffee went to the
foreign shipper or into the treasury of a
foreign government. 1t still renal NED a
case in which the consumer gained moth
ing by the removal of the customs duty
and the only loser was the United States
treasury, which lost the duties previously
collected.
In our reply to the Times we went upon
the assumption that its allegation tn At Bra
I'll LAID an export duty on coffee as soon as
the United States removed its customs
duty, might he correct. Since then we
have taken pains to obtain some iuforma-
ton on that point, and find that the
TtmCS'S assertion was about as near cor
rect IT'S many of the other statements ON
which the free traders base their argu-
tnents. There was no truth in it,
What are the facts? The act of Con
4,
effect May LIST, 1872 Now if the Times
will make Inquiry at the Department of
State at Washington, or consult the cor.
respUnueEce of the American minister 10
Brazil, printed in the executive documents
Of the first session of the 43d Congress.
1913 /, Vol. l., it will learn that it was in
September, 1867, that Brazil established
the export tax on coffee, at per cent ud
Udi0rem, and that that rate continued
unchanged until the Both of October. 1882.
when 1t was reduced to per cent al uul-
oFcm That Is to say, the Brazilian eX-
port duty had been collected for over four
years when the American customs duty
was taken off, and the export duty re-
NAMED unchanged for ten years afterl
That the removal Of the American tariff
the Brazilian shippers, is plain from the
olhclal correspondence to which we have
Alluded In a letter to the secrt tary of
State. dated January 20, 1888, nearly nine
months after our duties on coffee were
taken of, the American minister, speak |
ing OF his efforts to persuade the Brazil. |
ians to reduce their duties upon articles
OF ours, which was matter under con
sideration there by government commits |
sion, says:
This commission l had hopes would |
recommend reduction of the duties ON |
certain articles, chiefly the products of the |
United States, such as flour, kerosene and |
lumber, in return for the abolition of orr
duty on coffee bv Which the BrazllidnS
prOtted so much.
Two months later, on the Gath Of March |
1873, in letter also published and open to |
the observation of the Times, the minister |
says
think that we acted with undue liber-
allty aud perhaps too precipitately in tax |
ing off the moderate duty of 3 cents a Mound |
on coffee, or 81 so "A bag, and of which we |
received near l,5OUOOO bags from Brazil, |
thus giving up over $1,000, 600 of revenue
the benefit of which surrender accrued |
directly to the producers of coffee. which |
Instantly on the receipt of that news went
up TO that extent nearly in price, and has |
not since receded.
The Times thus appears to have bee n as
ignorant as it was illogical, Having twice
arraigned Senator Edmunds for alleged
Ignorance or concealment of an essential
fact-whch proves 10 be no fact-we sub.
NIT to the Times whether decent regard
for justice does not require it to return 10
the subject once more, and make an
apology to the senator.