Alpena weekly argus. [volume] (Alpena, Mich.) 1871-1893, 1892-04-27


to cover the losses and take out a
profit by extorting from the Amer
lean consumer a bonus over the nat
ural price of the goods.
Manufactures, says the Protect
ionist, cannot live in this country
without the tariff. l do not believe
lie. But il IL, nevertheless, the Pro-
tectionist's position. Manufactures
cannot live without the tariff. That
is TO say. they are naturally unpro-
ftable in this country. I'VE could
not sell our goods in the competi-
ton of an open market. But put
n duty on foreign importations SO
that we can raise our prices and net
% per cent. more than we could in
the open market, and we shall -four
ish." But the duty paid on imports
goes to the Government. and hence
does not help the manufacturer di-
rectly. His protection" consists in
u bonus, in the shape of an increase
Of price on goods which are not i'm
ported. But whence comes the Is
per cent bonus?
This is a very simple question
but the Protectionist is 80 dexterous
in eluding the point that we may
venture to be entirely explicit.
There are but three conceivable
sources from whence the protection
bonus can be drawn:
/. The foreign who pays duties.
2. The protected industries.
8. The unprotected Industrious.
Does the bonus come from the
foreignerr No; the duties collect
ed from him are turned over to the
Government.
Does it come from the protected
manufacturers? No; they get it.
Then it must come from the I'M
protected industries. The unpro-
tected, naturally profitable, agricul-
tural industries are taxed to sustain
protected industriAs=<compelled to
max cup up their losses, and pay be-
sides what the protected manufact-
urers are pleased to call their profits!
The Protectionist dissents. Two
peas and two peas make four peas
theoretically. But if you rattle
them up in a box, and have your
box big enough to let them rattle a
long way around, you will presently
6uddvs peas, and maybe few beans.
AS thIs: ut is all very well for
doctrinaires to theorize about who
pays the deficit. 1t won't do for
plain, practical business men. Why
don't we manufacturers pay our pro-
portion with the rest? The halter
pays his 26 per cent. to the shoe
maker, the shoemaker pays his 25
per cent to the halter, and out of
the increased prices we are all able
to pay the farmer more; everybody
gets higher profits, and it is a good
thing all around"
Again letu be explicit. Suppose
we have a community consisting of
glass manufacturers, mine owners
and farmers. The farmers hoe their
row, asking odds of nobody, but the
glass manufacturers and mine own
ers demands a bonus of $50 a year
each. How, on the protection plan,
will they get itp 1t would be a too
barefaced steal to levy tax on the
farmers alone. They will not do
that. They will avoid the appear
ance of unjust discrimination by
putting tax on all consumers Of
glass and coal; they will make all
purchasers Of glass and coal contri-
butte alike 500 each-to the protec-
ton fund.
Very fair this looks. Every man
is taxed 800 a year! $50 to foster
the glass trade. But mark the sim
gular result:
The mine owner pays in 500;
the glass manufacturers pays in 500
the farmer pays in 800. Every
man is taxed alike! Total revenue
$500.
But now for the division. The
mine owners receives $3.50, the glass
manufacturers receives $3.50, the
farmer--nothing.
Marvellous 6nanciering! All are
taxed alike! Yet the glass manu.
facturer and the mine owner are
ahead $50 each, while the farmer!
His industry is not fostered! But
who is it that pays for protection p
Congressman Warner.