The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1888-09-12
JOHN O. ADAMS ON THE TARIFF.
what He Said in the speech of 1882, Quoted
by Judge Thurman.
Tverhatim-Italics are Ne. Adams,.l

[verbatim-Italcs are Mr.. Adams'1
The doctrine, that duties of import
cheaper the price OF the articles upon
which they are levied, seems to conflict
with the first dictates of common sense.
But its supporters first appeal with conf
dence to the fact that most of the articles
upon which additional duties were levied
by the tariff OF 1888, have, since that time,
considerably fallen in price-and then
they argue that it must be so, by the ex-
element OF competition in the market. 1t
is certainly contrary to the natural
course of things, that an addition to the
cost should be a reduction OF the price OF
an article True it is, that the duty gives
a spur to the production of the article at
home. The price OF an article In the mar
ket must always depend upon the relative
condition OF the demand and supply at
the time and place OF sale. But very slight
variations of time or place, affect often,
10 very great extent, the rela-
tive proportion of the demand and
supply, and, consequently, the price OF the
article. No safe conclusion can be drawn
from the fact that subsequent TO the tariff
of 1928, the prices OF the articles upon
which the duties were then increased,
have fallen, unless from other circum-
stances it can be shown that the increase
OF the duty was the cause OF the fall in
prices, nor will it be sufficient, to prove so
strange a paradox, to account for it by
the excitement OF competition. Wherever
there is a profitable market, there will be
competition. Had the tariff of 1928 never
been enacted, the competition in our mar
kets would have been as great, and would
have been as effectual to reduce the
prices, as it has been with the aggravation
OF duties. In that competition our own
manufacturers might not indeed have
shared-but it would have existed in all
its force between those who furnish the
supply, and could not have failed to re-
duce the prices to the level of the mod
crate profit necessary to the existence OF
the trade.
But the duty upon the article imported
from abroad enabled the domestic pro-
Queer to enter into competition with the
importer from abroad So long as this
competition continues, the duty operates
as a bounty or premium to the domestic
manufacturer. But by whom is it paid?
Certainly by the purchaser of the article,
whether OF foreign or Of domestic manu-
facture. The duty constitutes a part of
the price of the whole mass of the article
in the market. II is substantially paid
upon that of foreign production. Upon
one it is bounty; upon the other bur-
den and the repeal of the tax must oper-
ate as an equivalent reduction of the
price of the article, whether foreign or
domestic. We say, so long as the
importation continues, the duty must
be paid by the purchaser of the
article. Some portion OF it, however, is,
for a short interval of time, paid by the
foreigner against whose trade the dones-
tic competitor is brought forward. IL af-
fects him as a reduction of his profits,
which he endures for a time. but under
the pressure of which he is finally COM
PEELED to withdraw from the market.
While this struggle continues the duty is
paid by the foreigner, or by the importing
merchant here. The purchaser and con-
sumner here are relieved from the burden of
the duty, and may, perhaps, obtain the
goods cheaper than if they were exoner-
ated from the duty altogether. But this
relief is purchased by injustice, at the ex-
pense not only OF the foreign manu-
facturer, but of the importing merchant,
till the duty becomes prohibitory, and
then the foreign manufacturer, the inn
porting merchant, the shipper, the
mariner, and the whole class of citizens to
whom the importation gave occupation
tinction of trade precisely to the same
extent that the profits of the domestic
manufacturer are enhanced by the bounty
paid to him for his competition with the
foreigner. This struggle, if the statements
often made by the friends of the tariff are
correct, is sometimes carried on by the
manufacturers 10 a very extravagant and
desperate extent. 1t has even gravely
been asserted, that, upon the passage of
the tariff act OF 1928, the British owners
of FORCES and furnaces reduced the
price oil their iron not less than IS a ton,
to retain control of the American market,
an operation by which, as has been shown
by the memorial of the free trade conven-
ton to congress, they must have incurred
loss of near five millions OF dollars a
year, TO retain the profits upon yearly
rates to the amount of perhaps $4,000.
1t is very certain, therefore, that the re-
duction OF So ton upon the price of Brit
ish iron in 1928, though contemporaneous
with our tariff act, was in no wise con-
nected with it in the relation of cause and