New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-10-07
THE QUESTION or RETAIL PRICES

The Mckinley Tariff went into effect one year
ago to-day. Probably there is scarcely house
wife in the country who was not led to believe
shortly after the act passed that it would cause
= general increase in cost of living and advance
in prices, at least for time. Many resented
this expected increase in expenses as mex
cusable and blamed the Republican party Tor
an evil which they have never been called upon
~ endure For the housewives themselves are
by this time aware that they are paying no more
for anv class of articles required in the support
Of \ family than they were paying over year
ago. If few solitary instances OF advance IN
nrice can be found, others can be given OF re-
duction in much greater number and far more
important.
These are facts now known to ALL but not yet
comnrehended by all. For many intelligent
mon. who see the facts set forth in their own
weekly accounts are still puzzled to explain why
II is that the added duties have not brought
added expenses to consumers. Their first error
obviously, is in accepting the false assertion that
duties on all sorts of articles were raised. In
reality. fewer duties were raised than were re-
duced. But why is it that where duties have
been added no advance in retail prices has usual
" followed? Before the at was passed. and
many times SINCE THE TRIBUNE pointed ont
that many retail prices were so far above the
wholesale cost Of the same articles that the
retailer could not afford to attempt any change
The attempt would only call attention to the
fact that he was making unreasonable profits
on such articles, and would invite all other re-
taers to get away his trade by selling at mar
rover profits. The lineup which retailS in
thousands of stores, and has for years, at
cents. actually cost only So % to 50 so per
gross. less than 2 cents each. Some dealers
claim that the cost of tin is greater, and have
raised the wholesale price 20 cents per gross,
less than a seventh of cent for each cup, while
other wholesale dealers have not advanced the
pra at all. What can the retailer do? Hay
ing made profit of more than cents on each
cup for years, can he afford to charge cents, or
1t cents, instead of 5 cents, or any other
than the old price? He would only invite the
attention of every customer to the profit he has
been making, and give any other storekeeper
chance to hurt his trade by selling at the old
price or lower. As might be expected, the re-
tail price does not change. There is no doubt
that barley in many places costs more, since
the duty was increased from 20 to As cents
per bushel If the brewer pays as much as
25 cents more for the barley in barrel of
beer, that is not tenth of cent more per
pint. Can the retailers afford to charge more
per pint or per glass, and make everybody
understand that they have been getting and
still get over 100 per cent profit, but are not
satisfied with that? There is a great number
of such articles of which the retail prices change
not at all because the profit is in any case large
enough.
Another great class of articles bear higher
duties but retail at the old price, because foreign
producers pay the duty. Certain worsteds were
offered here by foreign agents within week
after the tariff went into effect, and have been
sold ever since, at exactly the price charged
before duties were increased. Merchants here
knew that they must nave goods at the old
price or they would lose customers. The for
egner found that he must sell low enough to
enable them to sell at the low price, or they
would take American goods instead lie pays
the entire duty, and the retail price does not
change. So it is of many grades of foreign
cutlery, and of other imported articles in great
number. Consumers know more about these
things now than they did year ago. 1t fol-
lows that they also know more about the DEM
ocratic party and its dishonest methods than
they did year ago.