Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1892-03-16
a Few Questions Answered.

the former duty on sugar or tin plate,
we pay it all; ii g protective tariff, we
may pay part of the duty at first but
eventually the foreigner pays nearly if
not quite sill of it on goods actually inn
ported II we prefer TO buy English
goods. however, even though the Amer
lean goods are better and cheaper, then,
of course we pay the duty.
Ask the Canadian farmer who pays
the American duty. Ask the Sheffield
manufacturer, the Chemnitz workmen,
the pearl button makers of Vienna,
the tin-plate makers of Wales the for
eign manufacturers of silk and linen
and cutlery, and scores of other articles.
They WIKI. ali admit that they pay the
duty.if they put the goods on our mar
ket. Here is an admission from the
New York Times Of February ., 1891.
We produce 1t as good free trade testi-
mony indorslng our own assertions:
statement issued by the Department of
Agriculture. giving the exports to the
United States from Canada Cor the year
1Sq0.> shows that the Dominion exported
Sll1l9,03 worth OF agricultural products
TO TIE United States last year. The aver
age rate of duty collected by the United
States customs upon agricultural products
is about % per cent. and us 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 United
States, come out of the pockets Of the
Canadian farmers. Hence we find that
during the fiscal year 1920 no less than
So. 243, SQ0-that is % per cent. of Sill 043
went into the Washington treasury.
which would have gone into the pockets of
Canadian farmers il the Dominion enjoyed
unrestricted reciprocity.
Ii seems useless TO pursue the matter
further. IN the face of the many arti-
cles selling for less than the duty, the
free trader still cries, THE tariff is a
tax" Is the tariff on wire nails a tax,
selling at Sl.90 a key, While the duty is
81 Is the tariff on a yard of calico a
tax, selling at IL cents, while the duty is
5 cents? Is the tariff on yard of
cloth d tax, selling ct 20 cents, while the
duty Is So cents?
Question No s, How do you reconcile pro-
lection with reciprocity? Ii reciprocity is
good for few countries, why not Tor all?
Protection leyies duties on articles
which we produce st home, in order to
preserve American Industries and the
higher wages of American working
men. 1t also removes duties from all
articles which We do not ourselves pro-
duce, because the duty on them is an
unnecessary and burdensome tax to the
z consumer.
Reciprocity removes the duty from
articles which we do not produce, and
at the same time gets concessions from
foreign countries by which they remove
or lower their import duties on our
products exported to them.
Protection guards the products OF our
labor at home.
Reciprocity opens to the products of
our labor market abroad.
One is the handmaiden of the other.
Question No. 4. The Hon. VIM. NJ Springer
chairman OF the ways ana means COMMITTEES,
airy North American Review. Please explain
them;
THE imports of wool for the ten
months ending October 80, 1890 (the
Mckinley bill took effect October 6,
1890, amounted to IS, 00O, 900 pounds,
while the imports for the ten months
ending October so, lS91-the ten months
next after the passage of the biIl-were
over ll9, GOO, 900 pounds, an increase of
over 30 per centum.
For the ten months ending October
80, 1890, the imports of WOODEN goods
were valued at over $40 100000, while
those for the ten months ending Octo-
Der 80, 1891. were valued at only S29.-
000,0 8 decrease of over Al per cent
um. 1t also appears that the price of
wool has averaged from ? to 5 cents a
kinley bill than 1t was when the bill
passed.
1t is true that during the last calendar
year our imports Of raw woods of all
kinds were greater than IN 1890 by So
636, S99 pounds, about the rate of in
crease given by Mr.. Springer. This is
the fact shat seems to puzzle our CORE
spondent. It ought not to.
The United States consumes annually
II H. -
We grow about One-half of this guam
tity, or 800. 000,0 600 pounds, and import
ali the rest. Some of it, about 100000,
O0U pounds, we have been in the habit
of importing IN an manufactured
form and of importing the rest in
manufactured form as WOODEN goods.
The trainers of the Mckinley law saw
that the great evil they had to remedy
was the importation of Woolens, which
not only dispiace American wool just as
really as do importation of raw wool,
but also the labor which should receive
employment making the imported ar
ticle here. IF We do not grow wool
enough Tor our own use,' they said,
''tnen let us import the raw wool in
stead of the finished product, and SO
give york to our own people instead Of
to foreigners"
The result has been about as was ex-
pected. During the year ending De-
cember 81, 1891 our imports of manu-
features Of wool were about 500, 900, 900
less than they were the year before.
Here was an increase of 60, 900, 900
pounds in the demand of this country
for raw wool to make similar goods in
this country. Manufacturers necessari-
ly went abroad for part of their supply,
for our own wool growers did not pro-
duce enough last year to supply it.
The good effect of the tariff in shield
ing our farmers from this worldwide
fall in prices appears in the fact that
from january 4, 1890, TO February g.,
1892, wool fell In the London market 10
per cent. on an average, and only A i3
per cent. in this country between the
same dates. II would be equivalent TO
a fail Of 5! cents on pound OF
wool, worth % cents, as against | cent
on wool Of the same price in this coun-
try-not 2 to 3 cents, as Mr.. Springer
says.