Arizona republican., 1891-04-17
MORE ABOUT PRICES.
EFFECT OF THE MKlNLEY BILL ON
 WHAT WE BUY AND SELL.

The Higher tho Duty the Lower the Price--Taking Away the Tarir fin Whole or In Part Does Not Lower the Price In Proportion, If at All.
 Every student of the tariff question should keep an eye out to observe care fully the effects of the new bill. One feature in its operation is becoming prominent, which has vital significance m the tariff controversy. That feature is the noticeable decline In the price of foreign goods. When the Free-trader insists that the tariff is tax he assumes that, with the removal of the duty, the consumer could buy the taxed" article cheaper by just the amount of tariff on it. The unsoundness of this assumption is just now being practically illustrated under the Mckinley bill.
 Custom house officers report decided falling off in the valuation of imports, particularly in the classes, like cutlery and worsted, on which duties were most largely increased This result proves that it is the existence of the tariff which, in part at least, causes the low price of foreign goods. It follows, there fore. that prices of foreign merchandise would go up if the tariff were removed. Consequently the consumer would not buy his goods at the present low foreign price,
 That prices would rise abroad with the
 ,e la, tn, ,,rnval hty tho removal of the duty on coffee, which hardly declined in this country when made free. The same phenomenon Is now seen in the price of sugar, now made free by the Mckinley bill. The Free Trade Philadelphia Record of Feb. 10 contained long article announcing in bold headlines that the "price of sugar rises" and that "the removal of the duty acts as a boomerang" It goes on to tell of how the people expected to get the full benefit of the removal of the sugar duties, and adds:
 Meantime the foreign producers and dealers in raw sugars, realizing the prospect for an en- largcd consumption of sugars at relatively low prices in this country, and knowing what was going on in the United States sugar markets proceeded to anticipate the effect of the de- mand by putting up prices
 Now this is just the point to which we wish to call The Records attention. If the consumer does not get the benefit of the removal of sugar duties, he certainly would not in case wonlens. for example, were made free. We depend almost en. tirely upon foreign countries for our sugar, and the annual import may be al most regarded as a fixed quantity. It is not likely that free sugar will material ly increase our purchases from abroad, for the increased domestic production under the new bounty system will prob. ably more than counterbalance any in crease in consumption which may fol. low lower prices. Yet The Record says that the price of sugar goes up as soon as it is made free.
 Woolens would have much greater cause to advance in price if they were made free, or if the duty were materially reduced. Our own woolen mills, pro tected by the tariff, supply the greater part of the domestic demand. If the tariff wall were thrown down there would immediately follow an immense expansion in the demand upon foreign manufacturers for woolens. A great ad vance in prlces abroad must be the re suit. The consumer would not buy his rIothingat present foreign prices. What then becomes of the Free-trade's tariff tax
 This argument is fortified at one end by the decrease in the price of foreign cutlery concurrently with a higher tariff on it, and at the other end by Tho Records assertion that the fall in thu price of sugar will not equal the duty which is to be abolished. These cold hard facts stare the "reformer" in thu face, and flatly contradict his tariff ta, theory.