The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1891-10-03
LOGIC.

ing, thsn it follows that the taking G
100000 a day-which sum Mckin
ley says it takes to run the government
each twenty-tour hours-from the peopl
Of the United States by tariff taxation
enriches rather than impoverishes them
This being the case according to repub
lican logic, the problem suggests itself
How much must the government collec
from each man, woman, and child in tn
United States in the shape OF tariff taxa
ton to make every one of them a mill
ionaire? Or how much must they bt
taxed to live for nothing?
Let US put it another way: The ole
tariff imposed an average duty of Al pc
cent upon importations of foreign manu-
features and productions. The Mckin
ley tariff raised the average duty to q
per cent. If an increase Of ID per cen
in duties cheaper living would not ar
increase of 100 per cent bring the cosi
down next to nothing?
There is still another way to state the
problem. According to Mr.. Mckinley
1865 100000 must be raised each year to
run this government. This money must
be paid by the people in the shape of
tariff taxation. that is by a tax or tariff
levied upon articles imported into this
country for our people to consume. If
the people use them they must pay the
tax or duty. That means that 100000
people must pay $365,0OO,OOO a year at SO
a piece. A family of seven persons will
pay s42, a family of ten will pay $50.
Now comes the question: does the pay
ment of $40 or $50 "a year in the shape of
taxation by a family of seven or ten per-
sons increase or lessen the cost of living?
If it lessen the cost of living, then the
payment of Il tariff tax of 49, or $40
would reduce the cost one-half. Isn't
that good republican newspaper logic?
Now let us look at this matter in the
light of facts. The Mckinley bill i'm
poses a duty of 162 per cent upon En-
glish made fall and winter suitings 56
inches wide and weighing n and one
fourth pounds per square yard costing
10 cents per yard. That is for every 40
cents worth of cloth the purchaser pays
s2.l1. If he wear ten yards Of cloth in
coat, vest and pants he pays a tax of
S16.2O on goods the first cost of which is
$3.50, the aggregate cost being S2l.1O.
Now will any man of common sense be-
lieve that the Mckinley bill cheapens
the cost of that suit of clothes? Not one.
But, says one, the man need not buy
English suitings. American competition
has so ~cheapened American woolens that
he can buy a suit of the same quality of
goods for one-half the price. Don't be-
lieve anything of the kind. He may get
cloth resembling English suitings made
of shoddy and cotton for half the price,
which means 241a cents per yard or
S2.45 for ten yards. Now a little figuring
will show what he pays and to whom he
pays it. One-half the cost Of the En-
glish suiting is 5000. The first cost of
the American made stuff is S2.45. The
difference between half the cost Of the
English suitings (S10.55, and the first
cost Of the American made goods is $50,
This $50 go to the American manufac-
turer, whereas the tariff tax of S16.2O on
the English cloth goes to the government.
Now we are told by these same re-
publican logicians that American COM
petition extends all along the line of the
necessaries of life and that therefore the
cost of living is cheapened. And in the
same breath we are told that the Nc
Kinley bill has stimulated the importa-
tons of foreign manufactures and pro-
auctions, and they point to the customs
house figures to prove it. These two
statements don't consist" There is a
lie out somewhere. If the Mckinley
tariff cheaper the cost of living by reas-
of creating home competition in the
of the necessaries, what need
have we of importations and how can
those importations be sold in this
for no one will pay n dollar for
what he can get for fifty cents. II the
can't be sold they would
cease and then where are we to raise
those 1866, 100000 the government must
have to run itself?
In view of these several propositions
newspapers must revise their
concerning the cheapening
the cost of living under a GO per cent
tariff, which was levied to raise $685.
100000 annual revenue to run the gov
eminent. If they can show that the
people can live cheaper under a GO per
cent tariff than they a under a At per
cent tariff, then they can prove that the
the tariff or tax the people must
pay the cheaper they can live. But
until that can be shown and while that
1886, 100000 annual tax stares the people
in the face it is sheer nonsense to say
that the Mckinley tariff cheapens the