Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, Ramsey Co., Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1905, 1888-05-05

very pen with which you write this
follYis chsaper by one half than before
the duty was imposed. This Is the sub
stance, the beginning andsthe end Of the
Presidents argument in support Of the
policy he Champions, and ] doubt not
BUTT will be echoed and rs-echoed by
every free.trader in the United Statesy
as it has been hailed with unrestrained
delight by every free.trader in England.
same theory, and the whole burden Of
his speech Is based upon the false as
sumption that q duty Isl tax paid by
the consumer. He saysEif the 1aboring
maj pays 30 for q suit of clothes, and q
duty ofl00 per cent is added. It advances
the price to 30, which inures to the ben
eft Of the manufacturer, and robs the
laborer. I am not surprised that the
president should fall into this error, but
It il unpardonable in the chairman of
ways and means.
But what answer Is to be made to this
theory? There is n at least comprs-
hensivo and complete. It 10 not true.
I commend to the president his admo-
milton to others, to remember sit is a
condition which confronts us, not Q
theory" [Applause.l It is not true thata
the price Of the article. It IL not true
that . protective duty iSa tax paid by
tho consumer. It IL not true that the
duty. on the foreign product raises by 80
much the whole volume Of tho Compel
ing domestic product; and in support Of
this denial I can summon as unimpeach-
able witnesses every established man
u%facturing industry 1.-THE United States.
Call the roll Of your industries, your
iron, steel, glass, pottery, and the whole
array of American industries, and they
will bear current testimony to the fact
that the duty Of which you complain has
been the means of reducing the price of
their products to the consumer. I chal-
lenge any man to name the product of a
single well-established American indus
try that cannot be bought cheaper today
under our protective system than dur
ing any period Of our history under free
trade or a tariff for revenue only.
Take as an illustration our steel-rail
industry, and lot us see If the theory of
the president is correct. The first Boss
emer steel rail, made in this country was
in 1856. At that time there was a duty of
IS per cont on the foreign product, which
continued until January l, 1871, when
the act of congress wentinto effect which
imposed a specific duty of 22s q ton. In
1867 steel rails were selling in the Amer
lean market for $16e 2 ton in currency,
or elSS in gold. In 1870 the price had
fallen to SlO8,75, when the duty Of S2s
was imposed. Nowif the theory of the
president be correct the imposition of
the duty of US would have had the effect
of advancing the price by the amount of
such duty from $106.75 a ton to $134.76
But what in fact was tho RESULT Under
the stimulating effect of this protection
the production of our steel-ra mills rose
from 2 ,277 tons in 1867 to 2,1O1, 904 tons
in 1887, giving investment to millions of
capital and employment to thousands of
laborers, while the price went down
from $l66 9 ton in 1867 to $3l. so in March,
1883. In the slight Of this example what
becomes of the theory that the duty en-
hances the cost and becomes a tax upon
the consumer? Let me say to the pres
ident, SIT is a condition that confronts
us, not theory"
Take the case of blankets to which the
chairman alluded. A pair of 5 pound
blankets were recently imported at the
lowest possible cost. The statement of
the cost and duty paid is as follows:
Cost in England at wholesale. ................."..A 46
Yuty ......... ......... ....... ...... ..... 4 20
Cuassms Iees....s... .....,. ............ 70