The News-Herald. [volume] (Hillsboro, Highland Co., Ohio) 1886-1973, 1891-03-12
Agricultural Implements Not Taxed.

COnSuls TO Germany mas thls 10 cay oi
an exhibition Of farming implements
which he attended at Breslau: ''The
plows resemble the double Michigan
plow so popular in the United States
twenty years ago, but now about obso-
lete. am perfectly sale in saying that
an American farmer would not take .
single one Of the plows on exhibition as
a gift he would be ashamed to be seen
in its company. 1t looks very much ~
though it might be the work of coun-,
try blacksmith Of forty years ago." All
competent persons who have examined
European agricultural machinery agree
that it is vastly inferior To, American
work, and that even If it were admitted
into this country free it could not posi-
bly, compete with our home ,nanufactur-
ed implements for the reason that no in
telligent American farmer would be sat.
isfied to use such crude, ungainly things
at any price.
The question has therefore been ask
ed Why such heavy duty on agri-
cultural implements il there is no danger
OF competition with foreign manufactu-
rers? Why put tax Of As per cent. on
the farmers plow if there is no need of
protection? In the first place it should
be remembered that there is no special
tariff on agricultural implements. ThS
1orv oft vfosv, - n1a
for special protection or exemption, in
cludes everything else under the head
of "manufaetures" and places on them
a duty of As per cent. Not only is there
no special duty on agricultural imple-
ments, but many manufacturers have
stated that they don't care anything
about the tariff, and that they would not
be affected by it if the duty were remov-
ed. The reason is that European goods
OF this class would not satisfy American
farmers, though they might be sold
cheaper. e
There was time when this duty did
have the effect of checking importations,
but under its protection American man.
ufacturers have attained such perfection
in the designing and construction of ag-
ricultural implements that foreign man
ufacturers cannot make machine that
the American farmers will use. As it
| is, they do not enter our markets. There
are kinds of farm implements on which
| no duty has been collected for many
years from the fact that there have been
no importations Of them. Why then is
the farmer compelled to pay the 45 per
cent? For the reason that he does not
pay it. The following simple illustration
from the American Economist will mako
this clear:
The farmer buys q plow Of the local
agent for, say, SIP. The "reformer,"
desperately bent on weaving farmers
| from their allegiance to protection, comes
plow is AZ cent? The good man takes
out his pencil. multiplies the price he
paid by the rate per cent, and finds that,
| if the "reformer" tells the truth. the
"tax" is $40. The "reformer" knows
that the farmer will arrive at this result.
and he also knows how absurd it is, but
he takes good care not to correct the Hg.
uree.
Now, even il the farmer did pay the
whole of the As per cent. tariff, the
amount OF the ''tax" is nothing like this
sum. The duty is not computed on the
retail price, el1, but on the Wholesale
price, which, at most, 10 not moro than
half of this amount. Suppose, then.
that the Wholesale price of the American
plow is So. Any honest Free trader will
admit that the As per cent tariff is not
paid by the consumer unless equally
good foreign plows can be imported, and
with duty added, be placed in the Amer
lean market at % apiece. But the 46
per cent. must not be computed on the
IS which the plow brings in this coun-
try, but upon tho price at the English
or German mandatory, which price,
with the 45 per cent. duty added, must
equal $6. That is, instead OF multiplying
$6 BY As, which would give $40 as the
tariff, $8 must be divided by LAG TO OBJ.
tain the true base, the price In the for
eign market. This price would be el.l4.
and 45 per cent. OF this would be 81. SO,
the true duty, which, added to the price,
gives Just t6, the price at which it must
sell here, in order to compete with the
American plow. The "tax then, even
according to the "reformer's" own theo-
ry, would be only 81. .88, instead of $40,
as he designedly tried to lead the farms9
to suppose.
Thus while the nominal duty is 45 per
cent, the actual "tax" paid by the pur-
chaser of the American goods is very
significant part Of that sum. But when
we consider that foreign implements Of
equally good quality cannot be brought
in, it is evident that the price is deter
mined by the cost of production and the
competition between American makers.
and that the farmer on many Of these
goods pays no tax ut all.
For mild tonic, gentle laxative and
invigorapt take gImnons Liver Regsla.
~ & & "a, a Z. IA