Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1892-03-31
nWho Paws the Tariff"

If there is any one thing more than
another that gives us pleasure IL is to
see our efforts in convincing our
opponents Of the error OF their ways
successful. For four years we have
labored steadily and earnestly with our
Cedar street contemporary, the News,
endeavoring TO show II that the tariif
is paid by the foreign manufacturer
and that the American does not pay
the tariff. 1t has at last been success
full and this week the News comes out
unequivocally for protection. From II
column article headed, "Who Pays the
ariff-the Fallacy of Free Trade
Exposed Everything Cheaper Under
Protection than It Would BE Under
Free Trade on the seventh page Of the
issue of March "a we take the following
extracts:
II revenue or free trade tnrifr, such
as the former duty on sugar or tin plate,
we pay IL all; IL n protective tariff, we
may pay part OF the duty at first, but
eventually the foreigner pays nearly II
not quite all OF II on goods actually i'm.
ported II we prefer to buy English
goods, however, even though tho Amer
lean goods are better and cheaper, then,
OF course, We pay the duty. This Is II
TAX on Auglomania, but on ordinary
products, brought In 10 compete with
domestic products made on large scale
and already in practical possession OF
the domestic market, the importer, tho
foreign manufacturer and the foreign
/ lnhorara nav tho dutv
AN the Canadian farmer who pays the
| American duty. Ask the Sheffield man.
ufacturcr, the Chemni,l worltmcn, the
pearl button makers OF Vienna, the tin
plate makers of Wales, the foreign
manufacturers OF silk aud linen and
cutlery, and scores Of other articles.
They will all admit that they pay the
duty II they put their goods on our mar
ket
in the face of the many arti.
Giles selling for less than tho duty, the
free trader still cries 1.-THE tariff is n
tax" Is the tariff on wire nails tax,
selling at ST. 90 n teg while the duty is
81? Is the tariff on yard OF calico II
tax, selling at ~ cents while the duty
ia cents? Is the tariff ON n yard of
cloth tax, selling at 70 cents while tho
duty IL s7jG cents? We deny that tho
tariff Is ever n tax-.that IL, u burden.
In cases where the tariff has been In.
creased with u view to create and
develop n now industry, even II pricea
are temporarily enhanced, IL Is simply
an investment which will be repaid
may fold az soon as the industry is es-
taflishcd. The farmer does not begrudgc
the price of the seed In the spring
which will pay him bushels OF grain in
the fall
There remains, then, out one point
namely: Does the consumer pay q
greater price for any domestic product
because of the TARIFF To this we an
swcr, No, We do not mean To say that
the duty is not In some circumstance,
added TO the price paid in the foreign
market We do maintain however
that II tho tariff were abolished We
would have TO pay an equal II not O
creator price thnn VIC now pay for tn,
protected article. Imagine the tariff
on wooden goods abolished tomorrow
Foreign wooden mills would find foi
their output now market wider anC
richer than all their other foreign mar
kets combined. The capacity for pro
ducing would rcmpin the same, while
the demand would DO largely increased
Under such conditions must not price
rise2 That is TO cay, IL the tariff wer,
abolished we could not buy In the for
eigu market at present prices under OK
istent tariff conditions That counties
American products are cheaper nov
than foreign products would be unde
free trade would hardly admit OF
doubt In these cases the foreigue
we've oil the tariV
We congratulate our erstwhile fre
trade friend on its conversion. w
: hope that it will stick to its sensibl
position and continue to advocate III
, ouly true theory Of economics-protec