The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1891-05-22
4 swAsHkn

l
Our neiglbor, the Heraid, evidently ha
/ a new editor. II published long cdftoria
i on the tariff question taking as text
squib from the DEmocRAT IN the shape O
n joke about The grip, seasoned sonewha
: with little extract Of taHff reform. Ha
II was to tile Heraid as tie notorious re-
. reg 10 masculine bovine qpadruped
Here ii what Il has 70 say after quoiirg oui
little grip joke:
The impression conveyed In this extract
Ia that the price Of WOODEN goods ilas adj
vanced, By reason Of Tie Mckinley bill, Ioe
per cent, or 10 such an extent that the
poorer people find II utterly impossible 10
buy and nse them. This Is an absolute
and malicious preyarleatlon, and the proof
lcf That fact lies within the reach Of es cry
i individual who will take the trouble 10
inquire Into the matter.
| II Is highly propable that ihi, asip,e
"new" editor Of the Heraid Is the only man
In all the thousands who read our grip
squlb that received the impression that The
DGMocRAr meant 70 say that ,soolen gsods
had advanced by reason # the Mckinley
bill 100 per cent A real genuine tariff
rsforner "does moi care whether schoci
keeps or not, Is he cares nothing
about tie oiIicts or about winning cleo
lions except In 50 far a. they contribute TO
the promotion Of such tariff reform as
will reduce duties to revenue basis.
Hence tariff fefofmef always swings a
free lance. But the average republican
proteetionlAt has no real moliYe In pro-
noting the scheme Of proteesIonism ex-
eep, that Of promoting his chances Of win.
ming elections and securing the Offices. II
Is therefore amusing 10 see a republican
proteellonisi attempting 70 defend his pre-.
lection policy. They uniformly leave out
one OF more facts, which, II given place
10 The argument, would destroy their own
argument. As an example: The "new"
editor quotes business man as saying that
wcolen goods 10th foreign ard domestic
have not advanced single nickie in rrice
since The passage of the Mckinley biiI.
Does this mean that increasing the duty
on foreign goods VIII not increase the
price Of foreign gooda 10 the American
consumer Such an allegation Is absurd.
No sensible. Intelligent business man viii
make II. II would be jus. as sensible TO
say that doubling freight on goods would
not increase the price 10 the consumer. Bpl
II The duty ON foreign goods does not IN
crease the price otaach goods 10 ne Amer
lean consumer, then there Is nothing Ia
protection. There Is, there can be, bat one
object in protective tar.G, that Is 10 com
pei the foreign manufacturer 10 keep out
sf American markets by making his goods
cos, hinl 30 much 70 get them into cur
markets, that he cannot sell them In ecm-
petition at profit with American goods,
or al least 10 compel him 10 advance his
prices 10 sueh posn, that l.is competition
10 the marke, viii no, prove hurtful 70 the
American manufacturer. Dot tits highly
pTopable thar woolen goods are no higher
now than prior 70 the passage ot the Nc
Every intelligent, Wide awake, business
man knows that prior ioihe passage OF the
McKIaley bill. and At the time when Il be-
came reasonably certain that the bil!
would pass importers In tines Of goods up
on which the duties were Increased by the
Mckinley bill, uaorc than doubled their
orders ior foreign goods IN order that they
might be admitted to cur customs houses
before the higher duties came Into force.
As the duties on all lines OF wooden gods
were Increased by the Mckinley bill (ihe
increase being from an average Of 6S to 81
per cent? importers In these lines more
than doubled their importations and to
such an extent has the market for woolen
goods been flooded with these importations
upon which The lower duties were paid,
and Influenced 10 such an extent by the
"hard times and close money" that has
prevailed In most parts of the country
since mid winter, that We could only ex-
pect low prices for woOlen goods. But II
any man, whether business or otherwise,
will say that WOODEN clothes can be i'm
ported into The American markets, since
the passage Of the Mckinley bill, and sold
as eheaply and for the same profit as they
were before Its passage. then We can only
express our sorrow for one so dul:. The
suppression conveyed by the Herald article
is that wooden goods can be imported and
sold MS ekeaply IN The American markets
since the passage Of The Mckinley bill as
before It's passage. "rhis Is an absolute
and malicious prcvaricalion aud the proof
OF that fact lies within the reach OF every
individual who win take the trouble" to
investigate the following arithmetical
problem: An importer purchased suit
of woolen clothes weighing eight pounds
In Manchester, England, just before the
passage ofthe Mckinley bin, for which he
paid $40 and similar suit, since the Nc
Kinley bill went into effect. Supposing
freight, insurance, etc., to be the same In
each case, what will be the difference In
the prizes of these suits TO the kmcrican
consumeri Under the old law the duty
was forty cents per pound and IS per cent
ad valoreu, hence the total duty under
the old law was S6.7o. Under the Nc
Kinley law the duty Is 4o5z cents pei
pound and 90 per cent ad yalorem, hence
the total duty on the suit under the Nc
Kinley law is 5000 or an increase ot$3. .a6
So that the American consumer who buys
the above suit of foreign made clothing
will have TO pay, (aliowing 81 for freight
insurance, etc., and as per cent profit,
$4.oS more under the Mckinley law thai
under the old law.