Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1890-10-29

blankets the farmer bought are worth,
let us say, 80 cents per pound deliver
ed in New York. The tariff tax on
that quality Of a blanket is 33 cents
per pound and 80 cents ad valorum.
A tax of 33 cents pound on a five
pound blanket amounts to S1.65. A
FIVE pound blanket valued at 90 cents
a pound is worth $3.50 delivered in
New York. At 35 per cent. ad val
Drum the tax would be S73 cents,
which added to the per pound weight
tax makes a total tariff tax of $3.374.
Your FIVE pound blanket is now worth
$5.87s cents, Of which $3.50 represents
the actual cost and 1891 the tariff
tax. Is such a system just to the
farmer, who has to compete with the
world when he sells his surplus pro-
duets?
If the farmer had purchased 800
of ready made clothing, the weight OF
which was so pounds, he would have
to pay tariff tax of 49s cents per
pound in weight, and still further
tax Of go per cent. ad valorum.
Let us figure the tax the farm
er would have to pay on 500
worth of ready made clothing he had
exchanged his wheat for in England
Bear in mind that the clothes cost
800 delivered in New York. The
ad valorum tax demanded by the
custom house officer would be 500 and
the tax per pound weight would be
S24.75. The total tax thus paid by
the farmer on his 500 worth CT ready
made clothing would be sS475. The
farmer would thus have 800 worth
of ready made clothing and SS4.75
worth of Mckinley tariff tax. The
clothes he could wear, the tax he
could think about.
Now let us see how protection
works. Surprising the farmer had
brought his money back to New York
instead of buying goods in England
He desires to buy the same amount OF
the same quality and style of ready
made clothing that he wanted to buy
in England, and which he could buy
for 800 delivered at the New York
custom house. The farmer then finds
that he will have to pay the New York
merchant $1S4.75, being the same price
as if he had brought the English goods
with him. In the first he paid SS4.7s
tax to the government, and it went
into the national treasury to help pay
the expenses of the nation. In the
second case the $84.75 tax went into
the pocket of the American dealer
The farmer paid the S8475 tax in
both cases.
We have not room to show all the
robbing schemes contained in the in
famous Mckinley tax law, which has
for its object, not the raising of mon
ey to pay the national expenses, blu,
to enable the manufacturer to levy al
unjust tribute on the farmers and la
borers. 1t compels the poor to give t.
the rich, which is the meanest kind o.
robbery. 1t makes the farming in
dustry pay enormous tribute to the
manufacturer. 1t robs one man tC
; benefit another. 1t steals away need
ed comforts from the. homes Of the
Woodworking laborer, who does mo-
earn s400 year, on the average. Il
is the weapon with which the capital
list highwayman forces the people tc
throw up their hands while he take:
60 per cent. of their yearly earnings
from them. 1t is the incubator which
/. will hatch still larger brood of mil
liouaires to curse the land. 1t is the
hot-house by which big crop o.
mortgages will be planted on the
farms and homes of the people. Mis-
cry, restitution, want, sorrow, despair
and serfdom will be its fruits.
Under the old law the tariff take.
averaged 10 per cent. This was toe
high. The new Republican McKin.
ley tax law went into effect OH the 9Th
of this month, and il makes the aver
age tax 60 per cent. Under the old
tariff law the profits of manufactur.
ers were so enormous that hundred:
of millions of dollars Of British mon
ey was sent to this country and in
vested in the protected manufactures
Now that the tax has been raised, the
manufacturers profits will be still
greater. Under such an artificial
stimulus there is no doubt but that
the number of manufacturing estab.
lishments will be increased, and then
there will be another demand for an
increase of the tariff protection tax
The way to prevent such infamous
schemes is for the people to protest
against them, and the way to protest
is to vote against the candidates nom.
mated by the protection tax party.
Watts S. Humphrey represents this
infamous system. Thomas A. E.
Weadock represents the party which
is opposed to 1t. Then the way for