The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1892-04-29
EXPORT DISCOUNTS.

The CnarEe EflaI III Is a ITeNditub Cus-
tom Among American Manufacturers TO
Sell Cheaper Abroad than a I-ome Is
Entirely Untrue.
A question frequer'v asked is: ''Do
American manufactu- - IL "7ra?-r
to foreigners than I" G,-' ,r-n p-59.e'
We answer that pro bly, some few OF
them do sometimes, : very limited
extent, especially in tn ease of articles
like sewing machines which are covered
by patents.
That it is prevalent custom among
our manufacturers is untrue. Indeed,
it is confidently denied. ny ncH IN
exceptional positions to know. that 1T
is ever done. For instan-H. AIr. \. 3
Cohu, of the A. B. Cohu Complny, man
ufacturers of agricultural implements,
| 1917 Water street, New York. said:
| We have been twenty years in the business
| and our experience has been that goods
are sold in this country rs low II not lower than
they are sold for export, with this exception;
| Export buyers pay cash or give letter Of
credit on London, which we sell here on the day
/ the goods are delivered on board, and get cash
/ for it. This gives them a slight discount. but
| domestic buyers can at all times obtain the
same discount by buying on the same terms -
that is, by paying spot cash
This allusiOn to the slight discount
given for spot cash, as against the sales
on thirty. sixty or ninety days time,
which is generally demanded by the do
mestic buyer, probably explains the ap-
parent discount said to be given to th'
foreigner. But it should be remembered
that it is given, not because he is for
eigner. but because he pays spot cash.
| The American who will pay spot cash
can get the very same discount.
But, for the sake of argument, sup
pose we admit that SOM American man
ufacturers do sell at lower prices 90 iC--
eigners. Why do they do 50?
Sometimes 4 manufacturer has sur
plus stock. which. ii he does not sell.
will be almost total loss. He sells all
he can, but the season comes to an end
leaving an unsold surplus for which
there is no home demand. 1t may be the
whole profit of his years business Is
! locked up in that surplus, and If he does
not dispose OF it he viii 0e bankrupt.
He hears of an opening for his wares III
some foreign country. Would Ae not b
a fool not to place them there at sacri-
fee prices rather than to suffer ruin?
! And who at home is injured by the
! transaction?
! Or perhaps manufacturer has stock
I of old antiquated articles on hand which
the American people will not buy at
any price. Is he not wise, or will you
/ blame him, if he turns them off on to
/ foreigners at lower prices than first
| class goods cost in our own markets?
! Again. here is a manufacturer who
getsa letter from friend in some for
/ eign country informing him that there
! is a splendid market for his products
in that country if they only could be
| introduced. Would he not be unworthy
the name of Yankee if he neglected to
| send his goods there, even at nominal
price, to introduce them? Why, we see
/ every day men hired to go about giving
away samples of this, that and the other
/ thing for the purpose of introducing
them to consumers. And who would
be hurt by the Yankee manufacturers
action? If he succeeds in building up
foreign trade, it means more work for
American labor, more money for Ameri-
can channels of trade, and lower prices
/ at home. which always come with in
creased output.
Some American mills also make two
classes of goods, an article for sale
abroad, inferior, yet good enough to
compete with the wretched products of
a; foreign mills; and another better article
for sale to Americans. who will always
have the best or nothing. Cannot such
a concern sell the inferior exported
articles more cheaplY than it sells the
others? and is not the country benefited
by his increased business?
Do not these illustrations make it
clear that lower prices to foreigners
may at times be advantageous all
around?
But now we come to the important
point-namely, Is protection in any
way responsible for whatever discount
for export only may be given by our
manufacturers? Not in the least degree
is it responsible. How do we prove
it? By pointing to the fact that the
practice is far more prevalent in free
trade England. Below is n sample ex-
tract from the hundred of similar decis-
ions made by the United States customs
authorities. 1t is taken from a decision
by Secretary Folger, quoted in Secretary
Manning's report for 1886, and relates to
certain worsted yarns imported from
England, whose price was called in
question. The decision says:
II is conceded that the invoice shows the
prices actually paid for the merchandise These
prices are lower, however, than prices OF the
same goods for the English market. But IL is
stated that the invoice prices those at which
such goods sold for expectation, so that il Is
said there are two wholesale prices, both OF
them actual, one for consumption in England
and the other for expOrtation; and the question
arises, which Of these two values is 10 be chosen
as the basis for the assessment OF duties:
So the question as to export discounts
is wholly irrelevant in tariff discussion
Only the shameless dishonesty of the
demagogue free trader has dragged it in
for the purpose Of creating prejudice
against protection.
The Present state and Position of Tariff
'Reformers."
All of our readers, no doubt, remem-
| Der in their youthful days the small
| boy, who with violence in his mind and
| obiurgation in his voi9e, threatened
physical discomfort and injury to a play
mate, and how. after a short and futile
effort. he compromised the matter and
contented himself by making faces at
his playmate's sister.
The revenue ''reformers" seem to be
| in about this position just now, if we
! can Judge from the following, only
they have declined the combat they
/ seemed so anxious to engage in:
L ssrT X