Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1888-09-19
Re-stated.

The tariff question has been stated
time and again In these columns.
Here II Is sgain stated IL new form
by the Philadelpnia North .4merican.
Read the article. The principle nm
der lying the tariff question Is clear
ly stated and the practical part is
clearly set forth on the tariff on lum-
ber. A new England paper sums up
the benefits certain to accrue to the
workingman should the Mills bill be
come a law in "A manner that indicates
a presumption of Ignorance and stu
pidity III the audience addressed.
The article itself Is Ofn consequence
beyond its illustration o! the meth
ods of free traders in discussion
The writer takes the article Of lum
Der first in his statement, and assures
the reader that taking off the duty
of twenty per cent. would benefit the
the laborer for saws this remark
able writer, there Is not a laboring
man in the country who does not
help to pay that duty of twenty per
cent. Now, suppose somebody
should ask how every laboring man,
or even any laboring man, pays any
part of that duty unless he buys
Canada lumber, the maker of that
statement would cut very absurd
| figure indeed. Now, no man who
does not buy foreign lumber pays
any part of the twenty per cent duty
on lumber, nor does he who does
buy 1t always, or even generally, pay
the duty as a part of the cost of pro
duction and marketing. Twenty per
cent. duty does not quite cover II e
difference in the wages of labor be-
tween this country and Canada but
the natural barr;er-distance-
about covers the balance of wage dis
parity, and duty and distance or
transportation together constitute 4
a fair measure OF protection.
But the writer proceeds to show
that if the poor man scrapes togeth-
er enough to build house he Is met
by the duty on lumber at the outset
and taxed out of hand. Is this true!
Is there a man on the footstool who
can show anything of the sort We
deny it in toto. As the difference in
the cost of Canada and American
| lumber is solely one of wages paid in
production, even if every foot OF lum
ber used shared in the duty, 1t would
/ be for the interest of the laborer to
insist on the duty, because it was
laid on the difference in the cost OF
production, aud that difference is one
of wages. Suppose that one employt
OF lumber company, desiring to
build a house, should inform his EN-
plovers that he wanted his lumbe
duty of, what would be the reply
I This That he could have his lam
| Der duty off on condition that ht
would put in his labor at the Canadl
wage rate. If our lunbermen vii
accept the Canada wage rate, tha
country cannot send dressed iumbe
here and compete with US. We bav,
the Canada wage rate before us.
is not less than 81 per cent below
ours for the same labor. Such state
Inents are unworthy of a New Eng
land journalist, who Is aware that th
most of the foIce employed III tia
manufacture of lumber from Tia
stump to the mills is Canadian. Why
| Because Canadians flock into tn
border States, eager to earn Amer
can wages. The charcoal burning G
that region IS almost wholly done b.
the Canadiaus, and solely on accoun
of the better wages paid here.
Now the makers of such statement
as we have noticed insist that ever
foot of domestic lumber used in thi
country pays a part ef the duty im
posed. Does it ? 1t does not. TAX
out of the market price of domesti
lumber the wages paid in excess c
those paid in Canada, and the stun
page and cost remaining does nc
differ anything like twenty per cen
The market price of lumber is regI
lated almost wholly by the identica
parties who demand free lumbe
, They are Americans who have pu
chased enormous tracts of timber !
. Canada after having denuded emo
nous tracts at home nearest market
If they complain they complain {
=, their own acts Let them swear.