Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-08-05
RouNTIEs AND TARIFF.

The following inquiry touches upon a
subject of wide interest, viz: The respec-
tive methods of offering premium on the
development of domestic industries:
To the Editor OF The Dispatch:
Has Congress ever discussed the advisa-
bility of offering premium for the produc-
tion of American tin plate as it has done in
favor of American producers of sugar. II
so, please give the main arguments against
the adoption of such a premium.
Would not this system fully protect the
American manufacturer of tin plate, and at
the same time give the consumer the ad-
vantage of lower prices?
Respectfully yours,
LEoNIDAs HAMILTON
JoHNsTowN, PA. Aug. 4.
Specifically replying TO the first inquiry,
we are not aware that the proposition was
ever made in Congress for bounty on tin
plate. There has certainly been no ex-
tended discussion as to the respective
merits of the bounty method of encourag-
ing industries, and the tariff method but
there is wide range for thought, which
we will endeavor to summarize.
Merely considered as to the effect in de-
veloping home Industries the bounty oper-
ates practically the same as the tariff. The
latter gives the domestic producer a stated
protection against foreign competition by
imposing tariff On the foreign products;
the other affords like protection by pay
ing premium on home production.
But in the relations of the two methods
to the public revenuether is a radical op-
position Whatever of tariff protection
the consumer pays on that portion of his
supplies goes into the public treasury,
while on the other hand by the bounty
system, whatever of protection is given is
drawn directly out of the public treasury.
Our correspondents suggestion that the
bounty plan would develop the tin plate
industry and at the same time avoid the
enhancement of cost on the large amount
of tin plate that has to be imported, until
the domestic industry is fully developed,
has, therefore, force in it. But at the
same time it must be remembered that
whatever the people pay by reason of the
duty is Government revenue; and premis-
ing that the Government revenues are
honestly administered, therefore comes
back to the people. There must be reve-
nue. to defray the expenses of the Govern
ment
These points of agreement and contrast
lead up to the principle which we would
lay down in reply to our correspondents
question, that the bounty system is only
applicable where the Government has rev.
enue to spare; and that the tariff plan is
required where it needs revenue. 1t is the
fact that at the passage of the Mckinley
bill there was an agreement that the rev.
enue should be reduced. The only reason
why sugar rather than tin plate was
selected for the repeal of the duty and the
of bounty, on domestic produc-
ton, was that the amount of revenue thus
cut off was the proper reduction Had
tin plate been substituted for sugar the
reduction would have been too slight; had
it been added to sugar it would
have been too great The substitution of
bounties for tariff in the case of sugar
reduced the revenue some 100000, 900; and
THE DISPATCH recalls with satisfaction
that it was one of the earliest advocates of
that very popular measure.
So far as giving tin plate the same treat
ment, as our correspondent suggests, the
protective effect would be the same. But
even with the situation as it was before
the passage of the Mckinley bill, it would
have caused too great reduction of
revenue. After the large appropriations
of the last Congress, it is clearly i'm
practicable to make such an additional
hole in the revenues of the Government.