The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1891-10-31
Who Pays the duty?


This conundrum seems very diff
cult of adjustment. Major McKin-
ley, in his Ohio speeches, holds the
importer or foreign manufacturer
pays the customs tax, which is not
only against the weight of standard
economic authority, but if correct
would show that last year these
foreigners contributed $220,000,00(
for the support of this government
which would be very generous on
their part. But when it comes tc
dealing with the sugar tax Major
Mckinley changes ground, and main
tains it was paid by the consumer
last year to the extent of nearly six
ty millions. This bit of political
gymnastics as to sugar is necessary
to the argument for free sugar TAX
ing the duties off sugar it is claimed
reduces its price to consumers, but
doubling the duty on tin plate
strange to say, according to protec.
tionists, has precisely the same eff.
feet.
We have another object lesson on
this subject in the celebrated ribbon
case not long ago decided by the
supreme court. Mr.. Wanamaker in
his capacity as merchant imported
large lot of ribbons. These and
other ribbons were taxed as ribbons
and the Philadelphia merchants
paid the tax to the government.
Then Mr.. Wanamaker and other
merchants brought suit for rebate,
contending that the ribbons should
have been taken as hat trimmings
This suit has been won, and some
$10,000,000 or $12,000,000 will be
refunded to Mr.. Wanamaker and the
Philadelphia merchants. II "the
foreigner pays the tax" what RICH,
has Mr.. Wanamaker to this money
On the Mckinley theory, to be just
the government should send the
money to the foreign manufacturer
of whom Mr. Wanamaker bought the
goods. Instead of that it returns
the money to. the American merchant
who had already charged it up and
collected it from his customers
That is very interesting operation
is it notS The people pay the du
ties twice-once when they pur
chase the goods from the importers
and then again when the govern
ment pays the $12,000,0O0 rebates
from the public treasury to the i'm
porters. This tariff business is 6
precious boon when you are on the
right side of the divide.
Another thing, if the foreigner
pays the tax, as Mr.. Mckinley stout
ly claims, how is it arranged wher
the tax largely exceeds in value the
price Of the imported article? Does
the foreigner pay tax over anc
above the value of his goods for the
sake of securing American custom
ers? Thus there were imported last
years 100000 pounds of window
glass, valued at $1,054,30 Thu
duties on these importations amount
ed to $l,331, 992 or $277,691 more
than the glass sold for. Does any
one believe the foreigners paid this
large sum Of money for the privilege
of supplying the Americans with
window glass? Or did the importers
pay 81 ,054, sol for the glass and ST..
331 1892 in duties, and then sell th,
glass TO consumers in this country
for only $1,054, 301, cheerfully peck
citing loss OF 1881 1892?
There are many similar illustra
tions in the working Of our tariff
laws. The value OF cigars imported
in 1890 was $3,955,663, on which
duties were paid amounting to "a,
023,295. The value of distilled
spirits imported during the year wa
1886, l21, on which the duties wer
81, 1923, 307 or 1878, 900 more than tn
spirits cost abroad. So. too, OF
many articles on which the dutie
collected ut the American custom
house exceeded by thousands of dol
lars The Cost OF the articles abroad
What generous, whole seulcd, big
hearted people those foreign import
crs are on the Mckinley theory. T,
get us to take goods off their hand
they insist on paying taxes largel.
in excess of the value to thesgoods.-
/ Djf/shuyu Past