The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1888-07-13

WV 7777-T.-
IL viii win moro votes OIL the kind open to be
won by them than can tie secured by any
other course These political pretenders take
up free trade for what they can make out Of
1t, In the same manner as they take up the
profession Of apologists for slavery, the rum
power, Mormonism or the like, for what they
can make out Of it.
The stock in trade Of this class of free
traders consists of reckless, false and utterly
constituencies statements as to the pretended
effect Of import duties on domestic prices.
They represent that every article in use on
the importation of which q duty exists, pro-
vided It is imported In any degree, must be
dearer by the amount of the duty, no mat
ter how abundantly or cheaply it may
be produced In this country. When shown
that this Is not true of any protected article
they jump to the opposite horn OF the
dilemma and say IL the article Is not in
creased in price, by the assistance of the
duty but sells rs cbeaply here as elsewhere,
why do you want any duty on iti The ques-
ton thus evolved is merely proof that they
themselves belong to the class who prefer
always to seize the economic poker by the
red hot end. They set ont by falsely assum-
ing that duties only protect domestic pro-
auctions when they raise prices of domestic
products Then on being shown that this
consequence doesn't follow in q certain in
stance, they answer, then the duties did not
protect. Let us cite a few cases: A pro-
tective duty of cents per pound was placed
OH raw cotton in 1890 to prevent the cotton
of India, Turkey and Egypt from suppress
ing the proposed production of cotton in
America, where the manufacture of imported
cotton had already got a moderate start.
The duty simply said to the cotton growers,
we insure you the whole American market,
and when you can supply that you have
your chance In the foreign. Without this
assurance it is supposable that the expert
ment of raising cotton in America might
never have been tried By the year 1900 the
pounds, worth $5,000,00 but the duty
on the importation of raw cotton was
not repealed until 1896 1t did not enhance
the price of cotton probably after the year
1T95, but it did prevent the sale of foreign
grown cotton in America until 1916, and to
the extent OF the American market it gave
the American cotton growers a monopoly by
law, concurrent with and independent OF
their monopoly by cheapness of production.
The free trader might have asked the
question, at any time between 1895 and 1916,
"Why continue the duty on cotton when it
does not enhance the pricer But to this the
protectionist could answer effectually, "Why
repeal the duty, since 1t has ceased to affect
IN any manner the priceF' The last question
Is as apt as the first. Free traders do not
claim to aim at any other result than cheap
ness. They could, therefore, have no reason
for removing duty, after conceding that it
had ceased to enhance the price
In the tariff debates Of 1912 free trade
congressman made fearful harangue upon
the iniquity of retaining the "tax," as he
called 1t, OF five cents per yard on calico, i'm
posed in 1923. A free trader delights to call
a tariff tax, because, knowing the trick Is a
bold untrnth, he infers that it must be a cum
ming one. A protectionist orator replied by
producing sample of the taxed article and
showing that when it was first laid on the
article it was equal Though speciflc) to
an I'D valorem duty Of % per cent.
on the then foreign value Of the article, but
in fourteen years, the duty always remain
ing the same in fact, had risen to be equal to
100 per cent. on the foreign price, which had
fallen to five cents, while as a tax It had
wholly disappeared, for the American article
was selling in our markets at only four and
half cents, while the foreign price with the
duty added would have been ten cents. Still
the duty was protective, for it effectually
shut out the foreign product from the Ameri-
can market. But it was not a tax, because it
did not enhance price. It was merely fence.
Four-ffths of the articles named as duti-
able in our tariff list have travelled over this
road, and tho other fifth are well over it.
Fifteen years ago the American Iron and
Steel association issued lists of prices of iron
and steel wares obtained from many English
and American firms, showing that builders
hardware, cutlery, implements Of every kind,
agricultural, scientific and manufacturing,
carpenters tools ard most finished products
of iron and steel ready for use, sold as low In
America as anywhere in the world. The
stories told by free trade speakers and writ
ers, in and out Of congress, about Ameri-
can consumers being taxed on all
they eat, drink and wear are simple
square perpendicular falsehoods. The only
imported articles whose price is affected by
the duty are such raw materials of manu-
factue as unreflned sugar and molasses, and
bar, pig, scrap and other manufactured
forms Of iron and steel. In all these cases
the duties are paid i'll the first instance by
the manufacturers. The question whether
they ever reach or are ultimately paid by the
consumers Of refined sugars and Of iron and
steel merchandise, depends on whether the
American prices Of these are higher than the
foreign or than they would be if the duties
were removed. In iron and steel wares gen.
orally they are not. Hence OH these the
manufacturers bear not only tho first but
the last burden of the tax. On sugar the
price Of refined is at times on q level with
the foreign, usually a cent or cent and
half per pound above, and to this extent
only the American consumer may be said to
bear tariff tax But the duty on sugar is,
as free traders concede, as near being a
strictly revenue duty as our circumstances
admit, since the quantity Of crude sugar
produced in our country is SO small COM
pared with the importation, that protec-
ton forms an unimportant motive in its
enforcement. Thus the entire tariff tax
ON consumers reduces itself on analysis
to the single one of the duty on
sugar, and that is in nine-tenths of its
quality and effect duty for revenue only.
And here let us remark, in passing, that a
country which can produce everything finds
it impossible to lay duty on any article
which shall operate to produce revenue
only" without protection" for, whatever
tho oyfio1a io laid ~, ~ will ca,,co , eo,,,o