The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1892-03-30
WHO PAYS THE TARIFF


II 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. If we prefer to buy English
goods, however, even though the Amer
lean goods are better and cheaper, then,
of course, we pay the duty. This is
tax on Anglomania, but on ordinary
products, brought in to compete with
domestic products made on a large scale
and already in practical possession OF
the domestic market, the importer, the
foreign manufacturer and the foreign
laborers pay the duty.
In this connection we quote the fol-
lowing from recent NUM- Der of Lon
don Fair Trade:
II 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 over
come One OF the greatest arguments against
the theory that the consumer pays the import
duty is to be found in the fact that when for
product, the establishment charges as well as
the wages on this side of the water are lowered,
in order to give the manufacturer or the mer-
chant chance to deal successfully with the
change II the consumer paid the duty there
would be little cause for our exporter to grum-
BILE. But our manufacturers and work people
do make sacrifices to meet the extra duty, and.
we accordingly 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
manufacturers 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 mar
ket. Here is an admission from the
New York Times of February 2, 1891.
We produce it as being good free trade
testimony indorsing our own assertions:
A statement issued by the department OF agri-
culture, giving the exports to the United States
from Canada for the year 1890, shows that the
Dominion exported $ll 043 worth OF agricul-
tural products to the United States last year.
The average rate of duty collected 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 ex-
portedsto the United States come out of the
pockets of the Canadian farmers. Hence we
find that during the fiscal year 1890 no less than
hot 10 af x11 90 019-wpnt
into the Washington treasury, which would
have gone into the pockets of Canadian farmers
if the Dominion enjoyed unrestricted reciprocity
1t 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 ST. key while the duty is
SO? Is the tariff on yard of calico a
tax, selling at a. cents while the duty
is cents? Is the tariff on yard OF
cloth tax, selling at rs cents while the
duty is S715 cents? We deny that the
tariff is ever a tax-.that is, a burden.
In cases where the tariff has been in
creased with view to create and
develop new industry, even if prices
are temporarily enhanced, it il simply
an investment which will be repaid
many fold as soon as the industry is es
| tablished The farmer does not begrudge
the price of the seed in the spring
which will pay him bushels of grain in
the fall.
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 $40, 900, 00t
less than they were the year before
Here was an increase of 10000, 90,
pounds in the demand of this country
for raw wool to make similar goods il
this country. Manufacturers neces
sarily went abroad for part of theil
supply, for our own wool growers dit
not produce enough last year to suppl.
it. But over and above the extra 80,
900, 900 pounds which they imported
there remains another 10000. 900 as
positive increase in demand for Ameri
can wools-that is, there were 10000,
600 pounds of wool less imported durinI
the last calendar year than in the yea
before. So that Mr.. Springer's secon,
point, about the decreased imports O
woolens, answers his first about in
creased imports OF raw WOOL The ne
result is gain to American labor, woo
growers and wool manufacturers.
There remains, then, but one poin,
namely: Does the consumer pay
greater price for any domestic produc
because of the tariff? To this we al
swer, No. We do not mean to say tina
the duty is not in some circumstance
added to the price paid in the foreig
market. We do maintain, however
that if the tariff were abolished W
would have to pay an equal if not
greater price than we now pay for tn
protected article. Imagine the tart
on wooden goods abolished tomorrow
Foreign wooden mills would find fc
their output a new market wider an
richer than all their other foreign maj
kets combined. The capacity for pr'
ducing would remain the same, Will
the demand would be largely increased
Under such conditions must not price
rise? That is to say, if the tariff wei
, abolished we could not buy in the TO
eign market at present prices under e.
istent tariff conditions. That counties
American products are cheaper no
than foreign products would be undo
5 free trade would hardly admit of
doubt. In these cases the foreign,
5 pays all the tariff.
We have had many cases of this kir
: in our history, and in every instan'
x,,bara tho tariff has been removed ,