The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-08-16
Mr.. Franks speech

have just read the "Rousing ariff
speech OF Hon. M. P. Frank" in the Argus
OF this morning, and confess that it afforded
me amusement, II not instruction. I could
not help admiring the pluck of the gentle
man, whatever might think CT his judg-
ment, as / saw him In imagination standing
ON the track braced ON all fours with his
head toward the locomotive Protection"
shouting defiantly a la Cleveland, tariff
Is "a tax" and awaiting the fate of his
great free trade leader, who though politi-
cally dead, is still shouting the battle cry of
free trade. The gist of Mr.. Franks argu-
ment is contained in his illustration of the
tax on shoes, which 1 cannot do justice to
without quoting 1t in full as follows:
Let us take simple Illustration of each of these
kinds of taxation. Suppose that this town OF AL
fred possessed not the powers it has as town,
but the power Of nation. An individual living in
town has 81, 1000. III your tax rate were one per
cent his tax aside from his poll tax would be $40.
This he would pay yearly toward the public ex-
penS,ees, ana Il ne received six per cent income he
tax was paid. This would be direct ia ation
Suppose he invests his 1000 In some business In
town, say in the manufacture of shoes, and he
manufactures shoes at SIS per pair manufacturing
1000 pairs per year. If shoes cannot be obtained
elsewhere suppose yon now require him to pay
who viii ultimately pay this tax? 1t is evident he
cannot pay 1t and continue business for If ne con-
tinued to manufacture at the same price as he did
before which was the reasonable cost of maDufac-
ture, and paid 81 tax on each pair of shoes, at
the end OF the year his entire capital would
must either cut do SsS tn the % bay Of his Work.
men and take 1t out OF their wages or
ada T. to the price Of every pair Of shoes
1t. That is. the purchaser, the consumer or the
workmen would pay the tax, not directly, but In
reVenne Thus .ns 81
heavily on the laborers ana the consumers. But
II there were no manufacturer in town and you
should impose tax Of the same amount on each
pair of shoes brought into town and had your
borders guarded so that none should be admitted
that did not pay this tax, II before the tax they
as to sell Tor So per pair when the tax was i'm
posed as condition Of their being permitted to
wards for 81 SO that while the tax would in the
first place be paid by the person bringing in the
shoes it would ultimately be paid by the purr-
talist here manufacturing shoes at So per pair
should manufacture only half or one-third enough
for your people, and that while he was manufac-
turing and selling at that price, the remaining
quantity. was being brought here from other
places, the price for all being the same, So. But
men and that they are working hard and making
a living and supporting their families, and Ia
order to enable him to pay them higher wages
you decide to impose tax or tariff as before OF
S1.00 on each pair OF shoes procured from out of
town. What would your home manufacu rer do &?
the shoes he made. That Would be a protective
Tariff. That tariff would protect your home manu-
facture in taking S1.00 extra out OF each OF you
manufacture. Your tax OF tariff on all shoes
brought in from elsewhere would protect him in
pair Of shoes hoe Y he manatacturedM is pro.
tective tariff You will notice, too that 1t is only
the extra price on the shoes that are brought in
from elsewhere that goes into the public treasury.
Not dollar of the tax collected from the con-
sumers through extra price on the shoes manu-
featured by your home L,oducer goes into the
same on the home manufacture as on the other
article, it goes into the pocket of the manu-
facturer not into the treasury.
Now suppose that it never occurred to
this profound political economist that, as
soon as 1t became known that Mr.. Shoe
maker was making an extra profit of one
dollar per pair on his shoes some other fel.
low would want to make some money in the
same way. The shoemakers in other towns
who had lost their market by this tax of 81
per pair on the shoes they formerly furnished
would see how easily they could regain it by
| just moving their works into this protected
| town, and In they would come. Soon this
| competition would bring the prices down
| so that the shoes which sold at So. would be
| sold for $3.50. This reduction of profits
| would set the wits of the manufacturers to
| work to cheaper production by labor saving
machinery.
This is just what has been the result of a
protective tariff. When steel rails wSre 500
to 500 per ton and all the manufacturers
were getting rich other people wanted to get
rich too and rushed into the manufacture Of
steel rails when down they went until they
were as cheap in the United States as In
England where they had followed down 0ul
prices in consequence of the loss Of our mar
kets.
The tariff on cotton thread-an article
cod m Observation-Disclosures ovar from,
England the great cotton thread manufac
lures and settled them on the water power
Of our New England towns. Result, cotton
thread is lower, cheaper to the consumer
| farmer instead of the Old England farmer II
| furnishing to the thousands of workmer
| their eggs, milk, butter and vegetables. The
hundreds of thousands of acres of white
featured by New England millmen into
spools. The farmer sells his birch wood fol
the spools and supplies the men who make
them up with their daily bread and butter
Multiply this a thousand fold and it will APP
| proximate the benefits of protection to the
American mechanic, farmer and laborer.
Better make 1t for the interest of the for
eign manufacturer to bring his plant to this
side of the water where we can supply the
labor, the material and the food which goes
into his product than to have 1t done In a
| foreign country where we reap none Of
| these advantages.
That the duties on imported articles i
| largely paid by the producer and not by the
| consumer is evidenced by the anxiety m ami.
| Tested by the manufacturers and farmers Of
| England. France and Germany in regard to
the present and prospective tariff legislation
| Of this country. II we are only taxing ouI
own people. why are those people out howl
ing along with Brother Frank and his fellow
free traders on this side of the water against
| this robber legislation?
Within my recollection the prices of all
products of the farm in New England were
| 80 to 40per cent. lower than at present, while
| everything the farmer bought was higher
| than now. The old time price for butter
was 10 to II cents per pound, eggs 10 cents
per dozen, potatoes 20 cents per bushel, hay
$40 per ton.
Paradoxical as it may appear. protection
even to the extent of granting a monopoly
has benefited the farmer and the mechanic
Ask any farmer who is using patent NOW
er, rake or harvester, IL he has been bene.
fitted by the monopoly granted to the invent
| or? Ask the millman who Is selling edgngs
| from his lumber which he once threw into
the stream, whether he thinks he has gained
| anything by the patent monopoly granted tC
| the inventor of wood pulp for paperP Ash
| the consumer of paper In all its forms wheth
| er the paper he uses has been reduced or ad
yanced In price by the monopoly granted tc
| the inventor? OF course there can be bu
| one answer. 1t is the same with every pro
tected manufacturer. The temporary ad
vance in price has always been followed by
permanent reduction. And many Other
| articles which we formerly imported almost
exclusively we could now probably export
| but for the want of lines Of steamship com
municatiOn, which we have allowed to be
monopoliZed by free trade nations who have
protected and subsidized lines with which
we cannot compete. FARMER.
"A