Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1888-08-30


not now argue. In most Instances, where
the duties are judiciously laid. they arc
borne partly by the consumer, and partly
by the importer"
1t is alleged as a serious objection to
protective duties that the tax, whatever II
may be, increases the cost OF the foreign
as well as the domestic product to the ex-
tent of such tax or duty, and that it is
wholly paid by the consumer This obiec-
ton would be worthy of consideration if
it were true.
There is not in the long line of staple
products consumed by the people single
one which has not been cheapened by conn.,
petition at home, made possible by pro-
tective duties.
Exactly the opposite is true Of revenue
tariffs. They are always paid by the con-
sumner Supposing, for instance. there
was a tax upon tea and coffee. There be-
ing no production of these articles in the
United States, and therefore no competi-
ton, the cost to the American pubic would
be the cost abroad, and the duty added
We imported last year 536, iS9, 900 pounds
OF coffee. A duty of ten cents pound
would have produced to the Government
over So, 900, 900, which would have been
paid by the 1000, 900 families Of this coun-
try, consumers of this article. The duty
collected from imported sugar amounted
to S5S,0O0,000 The domestic production
was so inconsiderable as compared with
the domestic consumption as to have had
little, If any, appreciable effect upon the
price to the consumer, and therefore this
sum was almost wholly paid by our own
citizens, and the cost of sugar to the
American consumer, because of the
inadequate home supply, is practically the
foreign price, duty added.
'' If you take any American production
which is large enough to supply the domes-
tic demand, the effect is different. Then
the foreign production must undersen his
home production in order to get foothold
in this market, and therefore the foreign
producer is willing to surrender the whole
duty, or a considerable part of it, consent
ing to take less profits for the sake of ex-
tending his markets with the hope of uiti-
mately destroying home competition. The
real question, therefore, is whether in
raising money to supply the Government
needs, we should have thoughtful concern
of the industrial interests of the people
we represent, or, discarding every other
consideration, shall adjust our duties upon
the revenue principle to secure revenue
and revenue only. The protective system
but invokes the highest law of nature,
that Of self preservation There is every
reason, founded in justice, why the
American producer should in every con-
stitutional way be favored as against the
foreign producer whose products compete
with his. This is our natural market.
We have made it We have made it after
century Of struggle. We have made it
at a cost Of capital and BRAIN and muscle.
We have preserved it against foreign wars
and domestic conflicts at great sacrifice
of men and money. The foreign producer
has contributed nothing to the growth or
development Of the country, and in the case
of a revenue tariff, his product never bears
the burden.
Whatever we put upon it is borne by
our own people and in no wise shared by
him. This principle of caring for our own
is founded upon the highest authority,
human and divine. 1t commences with
the family, extends up through the COM
munity to the State, and at last to the Ma
ton. There is no city in the country in
any section that does not invoke this prin-
ciple in the administration of municipal
government for the protection and encour-
agement of its own citizens. The timer
ant vendor is taxed in every city of the
land. If he would expose his wares upon
the streets of Atlanta at public auction
doubt not the city government compels
him to pay tax for the privilege of doing
it, and that tax Is added for the ordin-
airy revenues of the city to assist
in meeting its obligations. And this is
done upon exactly the same principle that
we tax the foreign competing product
under the system Of protection. 1t is done
to protect and defend the resident mcr-
chants Of your city, who are with you al
ways, within your jurisdiction, subject to
your laws, contributing to the wealth and
progress of your city, paying taxes to
adorn and beautify it, paying taxes to sup
port your public schools and make public
The itinerant vendor has
no such relation to your community. He
is no part Of your political organism He
comes and goes; he is not a taxpayer, he
shares in none of the burdens of your peo-
pie; he is free-trader who looks upon
your market as much his and as open to
him as to yourself. Your city government
taxes him TO diminish the burdens borne
by your own citizens This is protection,
simple and pure. and is the exact charac-
ter Of that which we would apply to for
eign nations seeking our markets.
The tariff periods Of our history,
Mr.. Mckinley said, have been the periods
Of greatest financial revulsions and indus
trial decadence, of want and poverty
among the people, private enterprises
checked and public works retarded From
1893 TO 1912, under the low tariff legislation
then prevailing, business was at a stand
still, and our merchants and traders were
our industries were par
alyzed, our labor remained idle, and our
capital was unemployed. Foreign prod
ucts crowded our markets, destroyed do
nestle competition, and, as invariably fol-
lows, the price of commodities to con-
sumers were appreciably raised. 1t Is
An instructive fact that every panic
this country has ever experienced
has been preceded by enormous
From 1916 to 1861, similar
situation was presented under the low
tariff of that period. There was but
single year in which the balance of trade
was not against US. During the last fifteen
years, under a protective tariff, on the con-
-rary, the balance of trade was in our
favor, with the exception of one year.
This contrast, Mr.. Mckinley insisted,
makes an interesting exhibit Of the work
lnder the two systems. He quoted in
stances to show our wonderful growth,
and said it would have been impossible
lnder a revenue tariff He said the South
vas wonderfully rich in raw materials and
her own skilled labor should be employed
n turning them into manufactures. BE
discussed the objection to the protective
'ystem that it hindered the foreign trade
,y making raw material more costly. This,
le said, was not so, because draw
packs were allowed to exporters equal
10 80 per cent of any duty that
hey had paid on raw materials Free raw
could not always secure an ex-