Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1892-04-16
is 1T A TAXI
DOES THE TARIFF INCREASE THE
+ COST OF GooDsf


nue. Duties Are Paid by the Consumer.
Protective Duties by the Foreigner-Ev-
erything Cheaper Under Protection.
If revenue or Free-trade tariff. such
as the former duty on sugar or tin plate.
we pay it all; if protective tariff. we
may pay part of the duty at first, but
eventually the foreigner pays nearly If
not quite all of it on goods actually I'M
ported. II We prefer to buy English
goods. however. even though the Ameri-
can goods are better and cheaper. then, of
course. we pay the duty. This is tar
on anglomania. but on ordinary prod
ucts, brought in to compete with domestic
products made on a large scale and al
ready in practical possession of the do
mestic market, the importer, the foreign
manufacturer and the foreign laborers
pay the duty.
In this connection we quote the fol-
lowing from recent number of London
Fair Trade:
If we are to retain hold on foreign
markets. slight though it may be, wages
must be kept down that the high foreign
tariffs may be overcome. One of the
greatest arguments against the theory
that the consumer pays the import duty
Is to be found in the fact that when a
foreign nation increases the tariff ON u
British product. the establishment
charges as well rs the wages on this side
of the water are lowered, in order to
give the manufacturer or the merchant
a chance to deal successfully with the
change. II the consumer paid the duty
there would be little cause for our ex-
porter to grumble. But our manufac-
turers and work people do make sacri-
fees to meet the extra duty, and we ac-
cordingly hear grumbling from both"
This is plain enough certainly, and
need only be verified by actual facts
Ask the Canadian farmer who pays the
American duty. Ask the Sheffield man
ufacturer, the Chemnitz workmen, the
pearl button makers Of Vienna. the tin
plate makers of Wales. the foreign man
ufacturers of silk and linen and cutlery,
and scores of other articles. They will
all admit that they pay the duty if they
put their goods on our market. Here is
an admission from the New York Times
of Feb. 2. 1891. We produce it rs be-
ing good Free-trade testimony indorsing
our own assertions:
"A statement issued by the depart
ment of agriculture. giving the exports
to the United States from Canada for
the year 1890. shows that the Dominion
exported $ll ,219.043 worth of agricul-
tural products to the United States last
year The average rate of duty collect
ed by the United States customs upon
agricultural products is about 20 per
cent, and it is easy to prove from the
speeches of Sir John Macdonald and
other Conservative leaders that the
duties imposed by the Americans upon
Canadian products exported to the Unit
ed States come out of the pockets of the
Canadian farmer. Hence we find that
during the fiscal year 1890 no less than
&, 243. S0O-that is, 20 per cent. of ST.
2i9.043 - went into the Washington
treasury. which would have gone into
the pockets of Canadian farmers if the
Dominion enjoyed unrestricted recip-
rocity."
II seems useless to pursue the matter
further. In the face of the many ar
ticles selling for less than the duty. the
Free-trader still cries 1.-The tariff Is tho
tax" Is the tariff on wire nails tax,
selling at $i.90 keg while the duty is
two dollars? Is the tariff on a yard OF
calico tax, selling at AZ cents while
the duty is five cents? Is the tariff on a
yard of cloth tax. selling at seventy
five cent? while the duty is S71l centsY
We deny that the tariff is ever a tax
that is, a burden. In cases where the
tariff has been increased with view to
create and develop new industry, even
If prices are temporarily enhanced. it is
simply an investment which will be re-
paid many fold as soon as the industry
is established. The farmer does not be-
grudge the price of the seed in the spring
which will pay him bushels of grain in
tho fall.
There remains. then. but one point,
namely. Does the consumer pay a
greater price for any domestic product
because of the tariff To this we answer,
No. We do not mean to say that the
duty is not in some instances added to
the price paid in the orsign market.
We do maintain, however, that if the
tariff were abolished we would have to
pay an equal if not greater price than
we now pay for the protected article.
Imagine the tariff on wooden goods abol-
ished tomorrow. Foreign wooden mills
would find for their output new market
wider and richer than all their other
foreign markets combined The capac-
ity for producing would remain the
same. while the demand would be large
ly increased. Under such conditions
must not prices riser That is to say. II
the tariff were abolished we could not
buy in the foreign market at present
prices under existent tariff conditions.
That countless American products are
cheaper now than foreign products
would be under Free-trade would hardly
admit Of a doubt In these cases the
foreigner pays all the tariff.
We have had many cases of this kind
in our history, and in every instance
where the tariff has been removed OF
reduced below a Protective basis the
foreigner has put up the price and we
have had TO pay it; therefore we con
clude that while denying in toto that
the tariff on imported goods is a tax on
domestic products. as the Honorable
Grover Cleveland contends. we are very
far from admitting that it is always a
tax even on imported goods. Foreign
mill owners would be the greater gain
ers by Free-trade. Their eagerness to
break down our tariff walls ought TO be
sufficient proof to an impartial observer
that they pay at least some. if not all, Of
the tariff.