The Portland daily press., 1892-10-18

advance and they will not, save In a lew INES
OF goods-then the consumer here must pay
more for the goods than they did before THO
duties were increased Tha is the whole maj
ter in nutshell"
If the Argus had carefully read Mr.. j.
r. Libby's letter it would have seen that
its explanation, attributed to a member
of one of the largest dry goods firms IN
the city, of the reason that Mr.. Libby
could quote velvets at the price he did
was no explanation at all. What Mr..
Libby said was this
Imported velvets thatretal today at 10 cents
S1o0 S1,35 and 81 90 are at least 20 per cent
less than they We're before the passage OF the
Mckinley bill.
1t will be seen that Mr.. Libby
says that these prices of velvet
are % per cent less than before
the passage of the Mckinley. bill. Now
the fact, if it be fact, that Mr.. Libby
purchased velvet before the McKin-
ley bill took effect would not enable him
to sell that velvet at price % per cent
lower than it was before that time. 1t
might enable him to sell it as low, but
certainly not lower. So the Argus's ex-
PLANTATION does not meet the case at all.
The other dry goods dealer who said that
the foreign manufacturer had been cut
ting the prices of his goods furnished
the secret of the ability of domestic deal
ers to sell their goods at as low and even
lower prices than before the increase Of
the duty upon them. This undoubtedly
is the reason why Mr.. Libby can quote
| prices on velvets % per cent less than
before the Mckinley bill was passed.
Another statement of Mr.. Libby's was
| this:
| Imported dress goods were never sold at such
| low prices as they are being sold today. The
| samei is true OF American dress goods.
| Hosiery and underwear are also sold at much
| lower brlceS.
Now his is plain, direct, positive
statement made by a dry goods dealer
over his own signature. How does
the Argus meet it. In this way. 1t
says that
it is the general opinion of the dry goods deal
| ers whom we talked with that the Mckinley
| bill had increased the cost to the American con-
super OF the cheaper grades OF import l goods
l such as hosiery, hands erchiefS and the like.
1t will be noticed that the name of not
a single dry goods dealer is mentioned,
the exact language of not single one of
these various dry goods dealers is given,
not single thing is furnished by which
to verify the correctness of the Argus's
statement. The public can judge how
much vague and indefinite statement
like that of the Argus ought to weigh
against the positive and explicit state
ment by Mr.. Libby over his own sigma
ture Now, as to the statement by the
| dealer who said that when goods are ad-
vanced somebody must pay the advance,
that is begging the whole question.
The question at issue is whether goods
| have been advanced. If they had Mr..
| Libby certainly could not sell them at
price 25 per cent. less than before the
Mckinley bill was passed. no matter
whether he bought the goods before or
| after that time. The trouble with the
/ Argus is that it cannot get away from its
assumption that tariff is tax, and that
the moment an additional duty is i'm
! posed upon foreign goods the, price of
them advances. The fallacy that the
| duty always comes out of the consumer
is the cause of the Argus's- perplexity
| If it will only abandon that notion
| which has been shown over
and over again to beincorrectit willhave
no difficulty in understanding how an
| imported article may be purchased for
as low price as before the duty was
raised. The truth is that the tariff when
laid on an article which we manufacture
in large quantities is much like high
fence. The manufacturer who wants to
sell in the market enclosed
by that fence has got
to climb over it, and when he climbs over
it and gets into the market he has got to
sell at the same price as the manufacture
ers inside of it or not at all. The con-
sumers will not pay him any more
to compensate him for his exertion in
climbing the fence. If the articles he
has to sell are such as are not produced
inside the fence then he can
compel the purchasers to pay for
his exertions, that is if they are articles
of necessity that cannot be dispensed
with. And just here is the difference be-
tween tariff for revenue only and tar
iff for protection. The latter erects the
fence against articles which enter into
competition with our own, and compels
the foreign manufacturer to incur
| the expense of getting over the
fence. The former erects the fence
against articles that we do not produce
or manufacture and enables the foreign
producer or manufacturer to collect
from the consumer compensation for his
trouble and expense in scaling the fence.