Arizona republican., 1891-08-23

- WY " en0 S~n@uthu buty Ihon They
 Must Pay Ours-Ths Whole Commun.
 ity Must Be Considered. Not an In.
 dividual.
 A correspondent writes:
 Il am Protectionist from center to circumference, and my choice is the American flag and not England. have had this question asked me by a fruit grower. Please answer it: I send grapes to the Montreal market and pay two cents per pound duty, and buy a team of horses there for my farm work and pay 25 per cent duty on the horses. Would not Free trade be better for meY "
 Your friend says that he pays the duty on the grapes. We'll, that is a Canadian tariff beyond the power of the United States to alter. Undoubtedly he would be benefited if his products were ad- mitted free to the Canadian market, just as Canadians would profit if we ad- mitted their products free to our markets. There is very little room for controversy on this point. It is the corner stone of the recently negotiated Brazilian treaty, and the foundation of MT. Blaine's reel procity policy. But so long as Canada chooses to levy that duty of two cents a pound on grapes, your friend must con- tinue to pay it before he can enter the Montreal market. So much for the grape duty. Now about the duty on the horses.
 Your friend says he pays the duty on the grapes. Then the Canadian must pay the duty on the horses. Your friend cannot dodge this conclusion. The fact that he is the one who actually hands the duty to the customs officer does not alter the case. The Canadian who sold the horses paid the duty just as surely as your friend paid the duty on his grapes. And this is how he did it:
 Suppose the team cost in Canada $500 The duty added makes the cost to the fruit grower $375 at his farm in New York. We can safely assume that there was any number of equally desirable teams to be had at home. Why did he go to Canada for his horses? Because the Canadian was willing to sell them at a price so far below the price upon similar American horses that, with the duty added, they cost no more than the Ameri- can horses would cost, That is, the Ca nadian horse dealer threw off from the price of his horses the seventy-fve dol lars duty in order to entice the American purchaser.
 Now, if there were no duty on horses, do you suppose that the Canadian would sell his horses for $300 when he could get f375 across the border? You certainly must give him credit for more common sense. On the other hand, if we should declare Free trade in horses with Canada, how long do you suppose it would be be- fore Montreal would be swarming with Yankee horse dealers, all looking fof those $375 teams, which could be bought for $3002 And what would be the imme- diate result of the competition of these numerous bidders for the few Canadian horses that could be placed on the mar ket3 The price would jump to point at which a purchase of Canadian horses would at most only pay for the trouble and expense of the journey and the trans. portation of the team to the states But what glorious thing this boom in the horse market would be for the Canadian? Is it not clear that he is the one who would be benefited by the removal of the duty on horses, just as your friend would be benefited by the removal of the duty on grapes? Is it not equally clear that the present difference in the price of New York and Canadian horses is due to the existence of the % per cent. tariff which keeps them out of the American marketr This difference, which is simply the amount of the duty, is charged to the Canadian, whether he brings his horses to the United States or your friend goes to Montreal after them.
 Undoubtedly it would be fine thing for your friend if he alone were privi- legged to sell and buy across the Cana dian border without any obstru:ting tariffs. So it would be personal bene- fit to you if you alone had the privilege of buying the cheap pauper labor goods of Europe without paying any duty. When the same privileges are extended to all, however, the case is different. Prices would work just as when the lit. tle army of Yankee horse dealers rushed to Montreal after the cheap horses.
 Besides all this, the question arises, Would one under Free-trade be able to buy even if prices were low9 The qucs- ton takes added force from the fact, known to every one, that the people who live in the very shadow of the great fac tories which turn out the cheapest goods are least able to buy them. A carriage ride is far greater luxury among Can their cheap horses. Seek through the whole world and you will find the coun- try of the cheapest prices contains most want, misery and degradation.
 When your friend buys a Canadian team, even if he is benefited by the trans action, yet his neighbor in New York, who has team to sell, is injured in hay. ing the demand for horses supplied from Montreal. Thus you see that when the question is considered in its bearing oD the entire community the whole broad tariff controversy is opened up. On our side of the question we have the ever present, practical and all powerful argu- ment that under our Protective system, with it's somewhat higher priced com modities and much higher wage rates, we have prospered as no nation ever did, and our people are the best fed, best clothed and most intelligent -on1 the planet. No Free-trade or low priced country can show parallel. -g
 Today, in the markets of this country, the commodities that enter into the daily life of the nleonle without a single ex-